Traffic congestion causes huge problems that can be addressed by improving accommodation or constraining demand for travel by particular modes. This applies to all modes but is most critical on roads which facilitate most transport of people and goods in all developed nations. Emphasis on constraint is favoured by policy-makers for various reasons, especially in the UK, but producing evidence that it effectively cuts congestion is rarely one of them. Conversely, and perhaps perversely, there is evidence that prevailing strategies for UK traffic management make congestion worse for the most commonly used road modes. Nevertheless, the Brits lead the world in developing and imposing measures of constraint in private vehicle road use.
London’s ‘Congestion Charge’ version of Road Pricing is the most exceptional in global terms, while ruthless and highly profitable enforcement of parking restrictions by privatised local government agents is endemic throughout the urban areas of Britain were 80% of the population live and work.
But, having thoroughly investigated why UK policy is dominated by emphasis on constraint, LM research shows that the real reasons are very different to the ones given by our politicians and the transport theorists that they favour. For start, the ‘latent/induced demand’ argument – espoused by Phil Goodwin and disciples – that there is no point increasing road capacity because it will be taken up by an endless flow of new drivers, fails on two irrefutable grounds: First, urban and inter urban congestion is worse in Britain than all comparable modern states but the UK also has the lowest provision of public road space per capita. So there is a demonstrably positive link between higher road capacity and lower congestion levels. Secondly, the assumption that there is an infinite number of would-be drivers for a section of road who would use it if it had more capacity is nonsense. There is always a finite number of people who are able to drive in any area and that is determined by the social and economic circumstances of the region and its indigenous population and actual or would-be visitors.
4th September 2008
by Leon Mannings
Mayor Boris Johnson may never need to act on his controversial promise to rid London’s streets of Bendy Busses as the more dramatic solution of Bus Burning seems to be doing the job for him. Go here for latest news and a video demonstration of another one bighting the dust The Bendy Bus Big Burnning Issue!
1st September 2008
by Leon Mannings
Demand to maintain and improve safety standards are key factors for policy-makers and transport service providers. One widely believed theory is that speed is the cause of anything between a third to most of all road crash injuries or deaths. Correspondingly there are widespread calls for more measures to reduce vehicle speeds on roads – especially in residential areas of streets. There is currently a UK vogue for the spread of 20 mph zones. Enforcement of such limits can be achieved by the introduction of physical speed-reducing devices like road humps or deployment of automated enforcement cameras. But, in practice, ‘Exceeding speed limit’ was attributed to “3 per cent of cars involved in accidents” and five percent of all severities of accidents were a police officer attended – according to the latest DfT casualty report. In practice, speed is not the most common cause of traffic injuries, “Failed to look properly” is and was linked to 35% of all casualty incidents. It also transpires revealed that “Pedal cyclists, followed by LGV drivers are the most likely to be in an accident in which they failed to look properly”, (25 per cent and 23 per cent respectively), and that “Motorcycles are most likely to be in an accident with another vehicle that failed to look properly”.
So, there is also support for reducing road casualties by increasing the deployment of traffic police – who unlike cameras are able to discern careless or dangerous driving that is not related to exceeding speed limits. How to optimise the improvement of transport safety is however the subject of great debate and considerable confusion. At one extreme there are groups and individuals who believe that it is possible and desirable to eliminate the prospect or even risk of injury from transport activities completely – well at least on roads. The leaders of this school of thought are a bunch of Swedes who founded an organisation called Vision Zero. They say: “it is possible to use a public health model combining research, engineering, education, and enforcement to arrive at a zero accident rate.” And what ever you may think of this notion, including an inclination to dismiss the whole idea as barking mad you should note that the UK’s very own Department for Transport took it so seriously that it commissioned a formal exploration of it and report, see for yourselves at DfT Project: Vision Zero On the other hand there are those who have very different views about such notions as Vision Zero and indeed the optimum way to maintain and enhance safety. One place to find a discussion about this idea is on a forum section of the Safe Speed website.
Further explorations of vision zero lead to a suggestion in the Telegraph (albeit perhaps a mischievous one) that one essential step in that direction would be to; Ban Motorcycles, Safety Expert Says There are of course a myriad of organisations with views on transport safety in the midst of which is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents RoSPA, and small but often quoted outfits like BRAKE .
1st September 2008
by Leon Mannings
‘Sustainability’ is now a key element in shaping transport policy – especially in Britain. In theory this prompts a sensible seeming test of whether a proposal can be sustained beyond its introduction. But the practical value of that test depends on how ‘sustainability’ is defined, and who sets the range of factors to be considered. Currently, the prevailing definition of what is ‘sustainable’ among UK policy-makers is summarised by Sustrans . For them, transport is only sustainable if it can exist “within the means of the planet to both create the resources needed to create and fuel all modes of transport, and absorb the waste from their creation and use.” What they fail to define is how the capacity of the planet is quantified or consider whether such transport modes and amenities are sustainable in economic and social terms. Anyway, In practice, ‘Sustainability’ as defined by the likes of SUSTRANS has become a test of goodness for choosing how transport problems should be addressed. Correspondingly, walking and cycling are almost invariably considered to be the most ‘sustainable’ modes and cars are the least. But as is often the case with transport policy development the gap between prevailing theory and practice is vast and impedes tangible progress in tackling the most widespread problems… Read More »
30th August 2008
by Leon Mannings
The term ‘environment’ is frequently used as if it is a coherent collection of issues and considerations that are widely understood. It is also widely accepted that some transport modes and developments of them are good for the environment while others are bad. To help us grasp this simple idea the UK government have established an Environment Agency . The agency say, “it’s our job to look after your environment and make it a better place – for you, and for future generations.” How lovely! Anyway, top of the pops for environmentally “good” transport are cycling and walking. Correspondingly, any development that makes cycling or walking easier is good. Then, according to conventional wisdom, come modes used for mass transit, or Public Transport, i.e.; bus, train and tram or taxi. Conversely, some modes and transport practices are considered to be bad for the environment. Common knowledge in most ‘Western’ nations has it that all private motor vehicles are bad for the environment. Correspondingly, anything that makes use of such modes harder, be it more tax or physical obstruction, is at least no bad thing for the environment and quite probably a jolly good idea that only the brave or politically fearless might have the temerity to question. …But, as is true of just about every transport related issue the realities of whether things have a net benefit on environmental grounds are more complex and often different to the theory.
26th August 2008
by Leon Mannings
Traffic congestion causes huge problems that can be addressed by improving accommodation or constraining demand for travel by particular modes. This applies to all modes but is most critical on roads which facilitate most transport of people and goods in all developed nations. Emphasis on constraint is favoured by policy-makers for various reasons, especially in the UK, but producing evidence that it effectively cuts congestion is rarely one of them. Conversely, and perhaps perversely, there is evidence that prevailing strategies for UK traffic management make congestion worse for the most commonly used road modes. Nevertheless, the Brits lead the world in developing and imposing measures of constraint in private vehicle road use.
