Jam Tomorrow?
How is the Government tackling issues of traffic congestion and poor public transport provision?
Andrew Comer, partner, Buro Happold realistically discusses the integrated transport policy.
It is over three years since the current Government gained office and placed transport firmly at the head of the agenda, creating a superministry of Environment, Transport and the Regions and providing deputy prime minister and DETR boss John Prescott with a powerful seat to reverse the relentless advancing tide of the car. A much heralded “Integrated Transport'' Government White Paper unveiled in July 1998 received limited interest. Much of its content was not new or particularly radical, with no technically innovative proposals to wards the Utopian vision of lightly trafficked, pedestrian dominated city streets and fast, free-flowing motorways.
In truth, an easy answer was never likely. The problem demands tough political decisions, upsetting various sectors of political and business life and voters. The White Paper acknowledged the difficulties, with measures that could be adopted redressing dominance of road traffic in our environment. Individually the proposals would have minimal impact but taken as a whole it was hoped the measures might help change attitudes, habits and, ultimately, the way we live.
The emphasis on measures which “encourage'' personal choices is evident. The White Paper provided a legislation framework to enable change, retaining the principle of mechanisms for change through personal choice.
Alongside the challenge of changing national culture, lies years of under-investment in transport infrastructure. Throughout the nineties, under-supported local authority maintenance budgets dramatically curtailed the capital road construction programme. As funding dried up, cracks in the highway and rail network began to show (literally in some cases). Companies reliant on transport began to feel the impact. In 1996, road congestion was estimated to cost the UK economy £15B. As the nineties ended, a recommitment by the Government Treasury to a “prudent'' public sector funding policy and the emotively-charged health and education demands meant money for transport was not forthcoming. Indeed, in 1999 seemed to show loss of determination to deliver Integrated Transport policy altogether.
To political analysts and popular media, this appeared to be the case. There was no legislation rush to support the White Paper, no promises of significant funding to improve public transport networks and a noticeable reduction in front-bench rhetoric. However, rumours of premature death were exaggerated. In central and local government and the professional bodies, such as engineering institutions and transport providers, analysis of the White Paper proposals and development of strategies to support its ambitions were beginning to take shape.
It is worth recapping the aims of the White Paper: reduce traffic congestion, cut car dependency, develop freight and passenger use of alternative transport, improve public transport integration, safety and levels of service.
Strategy for achieving these objectives was to be developed at national and regional levels through the new Strategic Rail Authority, Regional Traffic Control Centres, Commission for Integrated Transport, Passenger Transport Authorities and, in particular, Regional Development Agencies. Most responsibility rested at local level. Local authorities must develop “local transport plans” (based on regional transport strategy), consistent with local development plans.
Integrated Transport policy is not limited to provision and integration of different modes of transport; integration with land use planning, the environment and policies for education, health and wealth creation is called for. This enables a greater degree of co-operation and communication between local authority departments, adjacent local authorities and emerging RDAs to ensure success.
Developers and major business needed to quickly accept the implications of new, national and local policies. In future, advice on planning and transport issues will be crucial during development projects early stages. New planning applications will be tested against local development and transport plans to demonstrate criteria conformity. Most planning applications will need their own transport plan, embracing Transport Impact Assessment studies currently required by most authorities, together with a Green Computer Plan or Employee Travel Plan and a refocused Environmental Assessment (to consider air and noise pollution).
The White Paper proposals and application demand a well integrated multi-disciplinary approach. The dynamics of initiatives delivery have proved more radical than the paper's contents. Indeed, comparative success is dependent on the willingness of parties of all interests to communicate, negotiate and take a holistic approach to current problems; based on sustainability, accessibility and environmental quality. Hence the apparent stall immediately after the White Paper launch, as the necessary reorganisation of minds and hearts began.
If one essential driver of the White Paper is delivery dynamics, another is provision of safe, high quality, public transport. In major cities, investors were concerned that sub-standard public transport and road congestion would eventually drive occupiers away. The cost to move from the current level of service to one which begins to change peoples' perception and choice was recognised as considerable.
The Government medium to long-term strategy believes that urban and motorway congestion charges, non-residential parking taxation and direct developer contributions towards infrastructure improvements could changes. In the short-term there is a need for investors, occupiers and developers to carry much of the initial pain. There is a distinctly uncomfortable period ahead as participants adjust to new infrastructure and development patterns, with the prize of less congested attractive and accessible facilities city centres. For instance, taxation of workplace parking may initially lessen the appeal of premises for investment but offsetting opportunities could be created. Development of Green Commuter Plans (covering business travel and deliveries, company car fleet management, car sharing, staff subsidisation of public transport) help companies reduce car dependency. Effects of taxation for parking or congestion tolling can be minimised and parking space land released as windfall development sites. In addition, developers can contribute directly towards infrastructure improvements (e.g. commuted payments for priority bus lanes or additional public transport services) in lieu of on-site parking, again leading to development potential within site boundaries.
A report by the Commission for Integrated Transport (CFIT) [National Road Traffic Targets, November 1999] examined traffic growth. In 1997, the National Road Traffic Forecast (NRTF) projected traffic increase of 28% between 1996 and 2011, in the absence of policy implementation. This figure is really closer to 35% because of impact of the agreement between EU and European car manufacturers to remove practices which maintained artificially high car price levels in countries such as the UK. The CNIT report predicted that if intensive implementation of the White Paper was undertaken, resulting traffic growth between 1996 and 2010 would still be 21%. An average implementation scenario results in traffic increase similar to that predicted by NRTF in 1997. This makes depressing reading; more so when considering that “intensive'' implementation requires “…a very significant investment in inter-urban rail and local transport…'', the “… application of road user charging and workplace parking levies…'' and acknowledges it “… will require considerable political will and public support to carry through''.
In the past two years there have been a succession of “daughter'' papers to support the original White Paper. These include:
A Public Private Partnership for National Air Traffic Services Limited, October 1998
A New Deal for Railways, July 1998
Breaking the Logjam: The Government's Consultation paper on fighting traffic congestion and pollution through road user and workplace parking changes, December 1998
From Workhorse to Thoroughbred: A better role for bus travel, March 1999
The Transport Bill, December 1999.
The Transport Bill is, to-date, the most important, containing measures to create the reality of a more integrated transport system, providing for a public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. It also aims to improve local passenger transport services, reduce road congestion and pollution and promote use of railways through the Strategic Rail Authority.
The first round of Local Transport Plans (preliminary) was completed in July last year. The first set of full plans are due in July 2000. The Government has promised an improved ten-year spending programme for transport, details to be announced) and a shift back to some road building. For railways, there is increasing signs of long awaited investment by rail operators (probably a result of franchise negotiations). There is evidence of some success in increasing freight volume carried by rail, some major stations have been refurbished. Buses show emerging quality partnerships and growing numbers of modern, efficient bus models. There is good news on the roads - 1998 to 1999 saw the lowest year-on-year increase for some time in car traffic at 1%, pedal cycle growth was 5% (in contrast to an annual fall of 4% for previous four years). Motorcycle usage increased (400% over five years in London).
However, for each positive achievement negative impacts. The horrific train crash at Paddington raised questions about costs attached to rail network safety. Buses still have an image problem, do not provide clear, up-to-date route information or offer a “seamless'' journey. Road congestion is getting worse in many urban and sub-urban areas.
In its approach to integrated transport, the Government recognises there is no quick fix to car over-reliance. Reducing car reliance will come through longer term policies within the context of land and transport planning, and various research studies taking place to provide new models to underpin policies. Many cities have begun to remove congestion. Oxford developing park and ride systems. Bristol's Legible City Initiative plans an holistic approach promoting enhanced environmental quality and make the city simple for visitors to understand. Edinburgh's car restraint policy coupled with public transport investment was welcomed by residents and businesses. The recent super-regeneration competitions for the centres of Liverpool and Sheffield and for the whole of East Manchester placed solution of the traffic problem at the heart of the masterplanning framework. The consultation draft of the DETR's revised Planning Policy Guidance (Transport), PPG13, summarises the basic thrust of this new approach:
“Land use planning has a key role in delivering the Government's integrated transport strategy. By influencing location, scale, density, design and mix of land uses, planning can help reduce the need to travel, reduce length of journeys and make it safer and easier for people to walk, cycle or use public transport. Consistent application of these planning policies will help to reduce the need for car journeys - by reducing the physical separation of key land uses - and enable people to make sustainable transport choices. These policies are therefore part of the policy approach which will provide benefits for car users and businesses in terms of less congestion. They will also help to promote sustainable distribution. In this way, planning policies can increase the effectiveness of other transport policies and help maximise the contribution of transport to improving our quality of life''.
Some locations will fare better than others. Traditional assumptions about relationships between building and transport need reviewing.”Location, location, location” will continue to be critical to development success, proximity to good public transport and transport corridors will gain importance. Mixed-use communities with short journey to work times and accessible transport modes will become both practical and desirable. Many of these areas are in city centres so that, inevitably, the drive will be towards urban not suburban development forms. Equally as important, areas with a high degree of accessibility will be promoted for higher density development - an incentive for better use of urban landscape. These points are particularly relevant to major cities, provided with higher numbers of transport corridors and networks of public transport linkages. Intensification of development in locations with good transport access may be a catalyst shifting balance of investment opportunity towards difficult urban and brownfield sites; high enabling costs will be offset by improved revenue streams from increased development potential.
If our urban centres are to prosper, remaining attractive places to live and work car dominance of the environment must be resolved. The White Paper will only succeed if its broad scope is retained. Much support is required. Notwithstanding legislative powers, impetus must be generated by revamped public private partnership initiative, revised planning policy guidance and clear, unambiguous advice on brownfield remediation processes. More important will be changing views by politicians and business leaders, those setting institutional standards, statutory authorities, developers, and, mainly, the public.
Ends
