A series of road transport experts has this week predicted precisely what the government fears – that the nation is heading for gridlock as people continue to shun public transport in favour of cars. The warning comes as many local authorities scrap emergency active travel schemes in response to opposition from a vocal minority.
According to the government’s own figures, motor traffic is already back to almost 100 per cent of levels before lockdown, despite 28 per cent of the workforce still working remotely.
While the prospect of a second national lockdown currently looms large, Rachel Aldred, Professor of Transport at the University of Westminster, has predicted that ultimately up to 2.7m more people who had previously commuted by public transport could switch to travelling by car when measures are eventually lifted.
According to Aldred, rising levels of motor traffic stem from a failure to provide safe alternatives, such as segregated cycle lanes.
“Without such changes, motor traffic will only grow further as and when lockdowns are relaxed,” she said. “Do-nothing means more traffic jams, more road injuries, and more pollution.”
The Government agrees that without large numbers switching to active travel, towns and cities’ roads will grind to a halt, and so it announced a £225m Emergency Active Travel Fund in May.
However, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has since said that many councils “abused” the initial allocation of funding and threatened that further cash could be withheld.
Vocal opposition
Cycling UK also highlights a vocal minority of people and MPs who have taken exception to schemes, blaming them as the sole cause of congestion.
To provide just a few examples: Conservative MP Crispin Blunt helped force the removal of a pop-up cycle lane in Reigate after just three days; a pop-up lane in Gloucestershire was scrapped after five days following complaints it caused traffic jams; and a Swindon bike lane was removed within a week because people were moving the lane dividers.
Two taxi groups have also submitted legal papers challenging the emergency measures being introduced in London.
Manchester Council’s Executive Member for Environment, Planning and Transport, Angeliki Stogia, was another to speak out against pop-up cycle lanes, arguing that if she were to “take out capacity on major routes” by constructing pop-up lanes, it would result in greater congestion.
Similar comments were made by Royston Smith, the Conservative MP for Southampton Itchen, who complained that the City Council was exacerbating congestion by “taking out lanes”.
John Parkin, Professor of Transport Engineering at UWE Bristol, disagrees.
“A good way of relieving the pressure as a result of this excess of motor vehicles is for as many people as possible to switch to using more efficient forms of travel,” he said.
“For trips of a typical urban length the bicycle offers a highly efficient alternative. A lane the width of a car lane can carry three to five times as many bicycles as cars.”
Research has also repeatedly found that opponents to active travel schemes are in the minority.
A YouGov survey commissioned by the BikeIsBest campaign group earlier this year found that 77 per cent of people in Britain supported measures to encourage cycling and walking, while a recent YouGov poll for Greenpeace found that 57 per cent of people support low traffic neighbourhoods.
Base plans on data
Dr Joshua Vande Hey from the Centre for Environmental Health and Sustainability at the University of Leicester, said: “We have to work very hard together to understand the systems-level picture of our cities. This means that we have to develop holistic plans for active and public transport infrastructure and connectivity backed by substantial government investment, and make absolutely sure we are not further pressurising disadvantaged groups.
“It also means that rather than blaming each other for our problems that we look carefully at the data behind the problems. An inclusive transformation toward sustainable transportation requires us to consider the complex system we are all part of, and how we can make it better for everyone through a cleaner environment and healthier lifestyles.”
Richard Allsop, Emeritus Professor of Transport Studies at University College London, said that while the pandemic had provided an opportunity to reshape our roads for the better, it would mean uncomfortable choices for many.
“All users of motor vehicles have to find by trial and error how best to make their journeys, and perhaps which to give up making in their vehicles, as they collectively get used to the enhanced – but from their point of view reduced – network,” he said.
“This will be a bit uncomfortable for quite a lot of us and really awkward for some. But our share in this discomfort is just our tiny share of the vast price that needs to be faced up to to reduce emissions, decarbonise transport and do our country's bit in keeping climate change manageable for future generations.”
Dr Steve Melia, senior planning and transport lecturer at UWE Bristol, says a reduction in motor traffic levels is doubly necessary with the UK population still expanding.
“These trends are not just threatening the transport system; they are threatening the future of our cities and our countryside,” he said.
“Britain’s population is still rising, despite Brexit. The government wants to build 300,000 homes – like a city the size of Sheffield – every year. Since the late 1990s most new housing has been built in large towns and cities. Our cities could house many more people, but not many more cars. It’s a simple question of space.
“As a nation, we have two choices: house more people with fewer cars in towns and cities, or give up and let car-based housing sprawl across the countryside. If we want to avoid that nightmare scenario then we must remove traffic and improve conditions for walking and cycling in urban areas.”
Duncan Dollimore at Cycling UK added: “Even before the pandemic, congestion was a serious issue for the UK, costing the economy £6.9billion a year while road users were losing on average 115 hours and £894 a year.
“The simple fact is that we need to make it more appealing for people to cycle and walk, particularly for short journeys, to avoid clogging up our cities with polluting motor traffic. Let’s beat the congestion and let’s get the country moving again, safely, healthily and cheaply, by foot or by bike, helped by restored confidence in using public transport.”
Add new comment
29 comments
i just rode my er5 back from work, soaking wet, barely able to see down unlit country roads, 19 miles of pure shit stormy weather and slippery stuff all over the road. But i would still rather be on the bike than have to drive it all the time. If anybody would like to see this.. when our major road into town was being worked on, it meant the only other routes in became bedlam for moving around on. It actually created traffic jams four miles away from the actual roadworks! people who went into bmth hospital, took TWO HOURS to get out the car park, and were quoted as saying'' the traffic is crazy, we just want to get home to christchurch''... [thats 2 to 5 miles distance btw]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tUdH-ih_o and the bbc showing it......... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRM-STYuQ2k
Is there a problem with the general surveys, in that lots of people will agree that cycling and walking are good things as long as there's no change to their particular lifestyle? So when it comes to their neighbourhood, they are less likely to want to be part of this.
Just like social distancing and herd immunity, this will need action from people on the ground as well as efforts from government.
Yes it's a good point, I think the phenomenon has a name in research circles, 'cognitive gap' or something. Many respondents will indeed agree that something is a good idea, but be unhappy if they feel that the concrete measures to make that good idea a reality adversely affect them.
Will you be voting in the next election?
People: 90% you bet!
Recorded turnout: 45%
A high proportion of cyclists also drive. So in the event of cycle lanes being removed, I wonder what the effect on rush hour gridlock might be should even a small proportion of those displaced cyclists decide to drive instead? Especially if their cars happen to break down at strategic points...
"Traffic" is now up there with death, sex and religion - at least when I'm around. The anger and the misery it causes is concerning.
I have, over the past 6 months, posed the question many times about what happens in the longer term as I slug it out in the local newspapers: there's load of opinions around, but the only answer I get is that we must utilise - which essentially means for cars - every square foot of existing road space.
It's increasingly putting pressure on adjoining pavements, getting to the point you don't feel safe on there.
The relentless increase in traffic levels happens over too long a period for most people to notice it.
I missed the consultation on that one as well...
And now, the Odd One Out round.....
The three things best to avoid discussion on are politics, money and religion.. death and taxes are things one can't avoid; as for talking about sex, it's certainly risky business these days and also best avoided, whereas chat on traffic and weather is very much the order of the day for most people.
I despair of some of my colleagues driving 2 to 3 miles to work and complaining about the other traffic.
Are they not blaming you, the obvious cyclist, for all of the congestion?
If people are unable to use their judgement to reduce the number of car journeys they make, the inevitable consequence will be increases in VED to the extent that it taxes people off the road.
I'd say fuel duty. People will still feel they need a car, so will pay the VED, and then it is a sunk cost and has no impact on the decision to drive or not for an individual journey.
Which is exactly what the fuel duty escalator did, until the lily-livered politicians withdrew it and froze fuel duty, so the cost of driving has fallen, while the cost of public transport has risen and the greater number of cars deters active travel.
Problem is that it has less of an impact on people in suburban areas that use their vehicle for mostly short journeys.
I can see huge increases in VED to tax people off the roads
Followed by huge political pressure and an easy win for the motoring lobby as they (successfully) argue that taxing people out of any activity is regressive and hits the poorest hardest.
Which would hold water were it not for the fact that the poorest can't afford cars. Any policy that supports the motorist is regressive, as it helps those that can afford cars at the expense of those who can't.
I wouldnt be surprised thesedays if people started to demand the goverment provided vouchers to buy cars to get around that
Indeed, but consider this; What if the voucher comes in the form of your old car....?
We had a scrappage scheme under the previous labour govt, and there have been calls for another one for electric cars. This clearly only benefits those who are well off enough to already own a car and are wealthy enough to consider buying a new one. All at the expense of the taxpayer. But that's ok, if you are in the aforementioned wealth bracket you get it back in the shape of a shiny new car. Less well off? not so much.....
I say both. VED can be used to nudge people towards buying sensible cars in the first place. eg Tesla's SUV might be low carbon footprint on fuel, but it's shocking on manufacture, its mass contributes to road wear disproportionately, and you only need to look at the shape of it to recognise that it's 3rd party safety credentials will be despicable bad.
Any taxation policy, of course, can (and should) be supported by proper design and manufacturing safety standards imposed on the industry.
We just need a governen that is willing to follow the science.
Cults aren't noted for their observance of science.
Spelling?
It's entitled populism - us, the innocent, hard-pressed motorist, vs so many unseen enemies that conspire make life so very difficult for us.
Please be sarcasm. I think we've all had enough of Feguson type science.
Imagine if you were forecasting for a company and got things wrong by a multiple of 10.
I would imagine you'd get bailed out by the taxpayer because you're "too big to fail".....
People saw wide empty roads and it encouraged them to make journeys that they might not otherwise have made? Like how building new roads encourages road use so they fill up instead of actually relieving congestion...
I think the government should state no new road building and leave it at that. Then we wait to see how long before regular grid lock comes in. When they start moaning about it remind them what they were opposed to and that they brought it on theirselves.
So, every authoritative voice says that we need more space for active travel, and less for motor vehicles, while a vocal minority demands not only the status quo be not disturbed, but more roads are built to try to cope with their insatiable demands. If only we had that "fact based decision making" so trumpeted only a few years ago.
Nobody says that the transition to active travel from driving was going to be easy, even if you win all the arguments, so be prepared for a long battle, and don't lose heart with a few losses. Our case is overwhelming, the DfT and the government are beginning to acknowledge that after forty years of greenwash, so maybe there's a chance this time. Keep sharp everyone, be prepared and don't let this opportunity slip away.
Agree - but this is a cohort that has developed itself a populist system of belief that edits out most facts (e.g. pollution, obsesity, diabetes, lived experience), plus the daily litany of incidents, always knows better than "blinkered" experts and professionals, has police and councils as "money grabbing" and "incompetent", cyclists as the Devil incarnate, residents pushing for LTNs as selfish and so on.
A tough ask, very little platform to build that case on.