Transport planners in Britain generally work for local government authorities or in transport consultancy and engineering firms that are contracted to develop local or centrally funded projects. In theory, transport planners are engaged to develop solutions to specific problems, or improve existing sections of infrastructure in the most cost effective ways. In theory, the changes these professionals make to the way transport works is for the greater good. In practice, many ‘improvements’ by planners do not make transport better for the majority. See ‘more’ below for an LTT ‘Viewpoint’ about this by LM. In practice, planners develop schemes in accord with prevailing orthodoxies on what is ‘sustainable’ etc. which significantly skews the assessment of costs and benefits. In reality, the costs in increased congestion for the most widely used road modes are often ignored or significantly under estimated when plans involve changes that, will (in theory) improve walking or use of bicycles and public transport or encourage modal shift away from use of private motor vehicles.
Presenters of the theories on which UK policy is based are mostly either transport policy academics or transport systems modellers. The most influential academics are based in government funded centres for transport in which the vogue for constraint, especially of private motorised modes, is a key element in the teaching and research that is granted funding. Some modellers are also in academia, but most work in the private sector.VIEWPOINT LTT 447/ 13 July 2006
The status of transport planners would rise if
they shared the public’s view of ‘improvements’
Good transport planning is vital to the social and financial health of the nation. Nevertheless, the ongoing concern about shortfalls in applicants to do it highlights a worrying gap between the value of such work and perceptions of it outside the profession. But in the debate over how to tackle that problem there is a critical factor that no one seems to have noticed or dared to mention. Having investigated how UK transport policy evolves – in theory and in practice – I think identifying the primary cause of current discrepancies between the respect that planners deserve and get seems simple.
UK planners work in accord with prevailing orthodoxies on the causes of current problems and what ‘improvements’ will be for the greater good. Essentially, at the core of current government plans to make UK transport ‘Better for Everyone’ is a belief that reducing use of private motorised modes is the key to achieving this laudable goal. However, the facts of UK transport life are that far more freight is moved by road than all other modes and 86% of passenger trips and 82% of mileage is by private vehicle. So, despite years of government support for dear Phil Goodwin’s old ‘new realism’ theory – that car use must dwindle – the current reality is that it has not. There’s a gap between theory and practice. Reducing congestion remains a key goal but most highway ‘improvements’ – which show what UK transport planners do – make traffic flow worse for the majority of trips in reality. But here lies the rub for UK planners – and it’s a big one! The gap between what planners and the public see as ‘improvements’ is huge and expanding. The spread of measures such as bus and cycle lanes and more traffic lights set to red envelopes the nation and, in theory, is for the greater good. But what the public see and planners don’t seem to is that most ‘improvements’ make traffic flow worse. In the grim and often worsening reality on UK highways recent ‘improvements’ make transport worse in practice for most people and trips. Crucially, though, this is not because planners fail to implement Government plans properly – it is because their prime objectives are improving facilities for minorities who can, or are forced to, spend the extra time required to meet transport needs by foot, bicycle, bus or train.
So, on the one hand, planners can relish impressive claims for current policy thrust, especially in London where it is pushed hardest. Bus use rose by 40% to the highest level since 1965 between 1999 and 2005 but the reality of modal shift is less impressive. Use of all public transport in the capital only rose by 4% from 30% in 1999, to 34% of [passenger] journeys by 2003/04. Correspondingly, the public are less impressed than planners. What they see is acres of empty road space between the jams and loads more buses with fewer occupants per vehicle and traffic flow getting worse for the modes that meet the majority of transport needs.
Despite recent assertions that congestion charging has reduced jams by 30% in London such claims do not reflect the reality that many outside the profession see. The facts of life for most highway users are not revealed by clever calculations of ‘delay rates’ that indicate great improvement. The average speed of traffic reveals how much better or worse congestion is. But, as TfL figures reveal, the overall average traffic speeds for ‘All areas’ of greater London (i.e. Central area + Inner and Outer areas) have declined. In other words even with road pricing at £8 per day, congestion for most is worse.
In reality, transport is not better for everyone in Britain and the vast majority of the population know it and assume this is due to the incompetence or malice of planners. This is not fair, of course, because they are only following orders to improve amenity for minorities. Nevertheless, widespread esteem for this work is low because making transport better for a few is at huge costs to the majority. But as one seasoned planner explained to me, the Government has no appetite for calculating or duly considering the true costs of current policy: “In the old days what we’d have done was a proper cost/benefit analysis,…we don’t do that any more… It doesn’t matter if overall it’s worse,…if we are providing …a better bus service …that’s ‘increasing accessibility’ and offering a ‘greater choice’ …So it doesn’t matter if the traffic sits there – in fact if the traffic sits there – that’s good because that will actually ‘encourage’ some of them to go on the bus. …There’s been this …acceptance politically and …professionally …that if we are seen to be promoting and encouraging walking and cycling, public transport, we don’t really need to do any more in terms of the technical analysis – because it might give us the ‘wrong’ answers.”
Ultimately, in a democracy it does matter if overall it’s worse. In reality, car use is not dwindling but support for constraining what the majority do is. Recent local elections and surveys on congestion charging in London and Edinburgh clearly show this. So, in my view, improving the status of planners is crucial but that can only happen when policy thrust is redirected at delivering real benefits in practice for the majority.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I had the misfotune to drive across London on a Saturday afternoon recently. It was the most distressing experience I’ve had in some years. We averaged about 12 mph – which I’m now told is quite good – for 2 and a half hours. Every set of lights were red so there was a queue at every set, I don’t think we achieved constant movement for more than a couple of minutes at a time. How can this be tolerated? Not only does it increase emissions and fuel consumption dramatically but it actually promotes illhealth through stress and road rage. It is quite clear to most people that public transport is unpleasant and expensive and unlikely to get any better while in the hands of 1st Bus et al. Walking and cycling are unpopular and unfeasable for most and motorcycling is discouraged. What is the alternative if not the car? There needs to be a complete drastic review and change of transport policy in this country if we are to avoid serious problems in the immediate future. Pouring millions of pounds into more cycle paths is not the answer however ‘sustainable’ it is.