Transport by foot is the most esteemed mode of travel in the world of vogue policy theory. It is the ultimate in ‘sustainable’ transport and walking more than most do is good for us all and life on earth in general.
Walking is however the slowest way to move about and in some ways the most dangerous especially when casualties are counted per kilometre travelled. Of the 3.172 people killed on UK roads last year, 646 were pedestrians and that is 58 more than motorcyclists – so it can be said that despite the great benefits expected from more walking – in reality it is even more ‘dangerous’ than P2W riding. In practice, many practicalities of walking set finite limits on the extent to which most people do it. Indeed, until the advent of widespread motorised transport the size to which all cities could grow was limited to a three mile radius from the centre – as this was the farthest distance people could work and walk to and from home on a daily basis. (London was the only exception to this in the world because it evolved from an amalgam of two city centres – now called The City of London and The City of Westminster – as LM research noted). Anyway, now, many measures are used to improve pedestrian amenity and safety including the spread of traffic light controls of traffic flow.
The pedestrianisation of many sections of roadspace including entire High Streets has also been widespread throughout many towns and cities.
Despite great emphasis being placed on encouraging walking and discouraging use of motorised modes, fewer trips are by foot in Britain now than ever. Currently the most tangible impact of measures to prioritise walking is to cut capacity for motorised modes on public highways. Correspondingly, in practice, measures to encourage walking and prioritise pedestrians causes a decrease in traffic flow – which is manifest by worsening congestion. But because the promotion of walking is such a good thing in vogue theory the adverse impacts of doing so and the fact that they fail to work in practice are factors that rarely get mentioned in polite UK policy circles.
22nd September 2008
by Leon Mannings
Cycling is widely accepted as the most ‘sustainable’ mechanised mode – because it is powered by human muscle and puff. In theory, we would all be better off if far more transport was by bicycle than it currently is. The CTC, Cycling England and SUSTRANS will tell you all you need to know about why.
Their vogue theory has it that this is especially true in developed nations like the UK where bicycles currently only accommodate a meagre national average of 2% of all trips. In turn, our transport and travel planners tell us that a big rise in bicycle use would cut traffic congestion, reduce pollution and improve our physical health.
In practice, the majority of people in places where bicycle use is far higher have much lower standards of physical, economic and social health than we would find acceptable. Their ‘choice’ to use bicycles is driven more by low incomes than ideology. In practice, urban congestion and pollution is significantly worse where bicycle use is significantly greater than in the UK – and casualty rates are also far higher in such locations. At the crux of this conundrum is the omission of economic factors from considering what is sustainable in practice. Irrespective of the potential advantages of significantly increasing reliance on cycling, such modal shift can only happen if more people have more time than they currently do for transporting themselves and the goods they need. Hills are the other crucial factor in the real sustainability of cycling. An upward incline is of no consequence to most motor modes – but it is if you are pedalling to make yourself go. The weather in Amsterdam may not be much better than Edinburgh – but the absence of hills to climb is – and in practice this matters more to most people than vogue theorists recognise.
Nevertheless, rafts of measures to ‘encourage’ more cycling have been spread throughout the UK’s road network and with increasing vigour over the last two decades. Primary mechanisms for promoting cycling include the spread of cycle lanes and traffic signalling to prioritise their use – and allowing them to use bus priority lanes. In practice this has not made any significant change to nationwide travel behaviour – the percentage of trips by bicycle has remained the same for more than two decades. However, this emphasis has cut the capacity of roads to accommodate movement by the mechanised modes that facilitate most.
22nd September 2008
by Leon Mannings
Planning for the maintenance and development of transport is a crucial factor – but optimising the course and shape of plans is impeded by several critical factors.
First is the short term outlook of the politicians at the top of the policy-making process. Their term of control and responsibility for proposals is almost always shorter than the time it takes to implement change and objectively test whether it delivers the improvements that were promised in justifying expenditure of public funds.
The second major impediment to progress is the lack of specialist technical knowledge among politicians and indeed ignorance about the complexities of transport management and development. However, the impact of these factors depends on the extent that a nation allows its politicians to be involved…
A grand plan for the development of Paris was drawn up at the beginning of the nineteenth century and politicians were not allowed to interfere with its implementation during the ensuing decades. The British approach is at the other extreme where all major development plans are subject to a plethora of political interventions. These include grass roots objections by local campaigners who have little interest in the transport needs of the region or nation as a whole. They also include the impact that a particular political figure can have when exceptional circumstances allow them to exert an unusual level of have when they on the direction policy takes.
Prime examples of this in the UK are Barbara Castle, John Prescott and Ken Livingstone…
21st September 2008
by Leon Mannings
Taxis are sometimes treated as elements of ‘public transport’ and high occupancy vehicles (HOV) that are not part of a bus service fleet are allowed to use some priority lanes that exclude general road traffic. This is broadly inline with the theory that use of these vehicles is preferable to ordinary private motor vehicles and especially those with a single occupant. As is increasingly the case in developed nations, UK taxi drivers and their vehicles are licensed to ply for trade on public highways in exchange for meeting higher than basic standards of competence and road worthiness. See the National Taxi Association for more. The A subset of these services in UK towns is provided by mini-cabs whose drivers are now regulated in the UK but not required to have as much of The Knowledge required for full taxi status in London and other major cities. Encouraging use of HOVs is seen as one way to cut the number of vehicles on congested urban and inter-urban highways
19th September 2008
by Leon Mannings
In practice, motorcycles, mopeds and scooters, aka Powered Two Wheelers (P2W) offer cheaper and more efficient motorised transport than four wheelers. The most vigorously contested element of motorcycling policy matters right now is a trial of what amounts to a new tax on M/C parking on public highways in Westminster. The pioneering protagonists are Westminster City Council, and opponents are represented by notobikeparkingfees.com, who the UK Foreign Office cite as a “brilliant digital campaign“. Nevertheless, in theory, though not a vogue one, greater use of this mode – especially in heavily populated urban areas can help reduce demand on oversubscribed public transport and congested road space. This was recently acknowledged by UK government in its Motorcycling Strategy document which emerged from a marathon five years of design by committee.
This is accompanied by a new set of IHIE guidelines for highway engineers that is also recognised by UK government. However, the exposure of riders to the elements and higher risk of injury than in enclosed vehicles deters all but a minority from using this mode in Britain. Currently, these vehicles facilitate far more passenger movement than cars in places like India but only 6% of UK passenger miles although this is slightly more than the 5% by pedal powered bicycles. Unfortunately for all concerned P2W rider casualties are disproportionately higher than with some other modes. Of the 3.172 people killed on UK roads last year, 588 of them were P2W riders. This bad record is often used and seemingly reasonably to justify far greater emphasis on encouraging modal shift from cars to bicycles than motorcycles. It is nevertheless worth noting that although walking is encouraged perhaps above all modes, there were 646 pedestrians killed on roads which in some ways shows it to be even more dangerous than motorcycling.
In practice, far more is done to improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists than motorcyclists and this by and large reflects vogue attitudes in UK policy circles. A rare exception is the new London Mayor’s plan to allow P2W use of bus lanes, in response to a TfL study that showed it reduced motorcycle casualties by up to 40% and cut pedestrian and cyclists casualties. Go here for a short film on how a British motorcycle is made.
19th September 2008
by Leon Mannings
Walking is however the slowest way to move about and in some ways the most dangerous especially when casualties are counted per kilometre travelled. Of the 3.172 people killed on UK roads last year, 646 were pedestrians and that is 58 more than motorcyclists – so it can be said that despite the great benefits expected from more walking – in reality it is even more ‘dangerous’ than P2W riding. In practice, many practicalities of walking set finite limits on the extent to which most people do it. Indeed, until the advent of widespread motorised transport the size to which all cities could grow was limited to a three mile radius from the centre – as this was the farthest distance people could work and walk to and from home on a daily basis. (London was the only exception to this in the world because it evolved from an amalgam of two city centres – now called The City of London and The City of Westminster – as LM research noted). Anyway, now, many measures are used to improve pedestrian amenity and safety including the spread of traffic light controls of traffic flow.
