Forum topic: What does the government's announcement about active travel mean for Enfield's schemes?

Gear Change - One Year On (excerpts)

(Italics and bold added.)

(p7 - prime minister's foreward)

I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use. And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is, because trying to squeeze more cars and delivery vans on the same roads and hoping for the best is not going to work.

And as the benefits of schemes increase over time, what opposition there is falls further. That is why schemes must be in place long enough for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evidenced.

(p9)

There are only a few ways to deal with the enormous growth in demand for roadspace. The frst way is building more roads in urban areas, which is politically and practically diffcult in most cities, with little public support for the demolitions of private property which would be required. There is also evidence that it does not work, simply attracting more traffic.

The second way is building more railways, which takes decades. The third is some form of congestion charging, as in London. The fourth is to make better use of the roads we already have, by encouraging vehicles such as buses and bikes that take up less space per passenger. In the short and medium term, this is the only way to keep the roads moving for the traffic that most needs to use them.

(p21)

We will discourage the weakening or removal of schemes without proper evidence, and require full consultation that fairly reflects local views

We are revising our additional Network Management Duty guidance to make clear our expectation that schemes will remain in place and that schemes need to be given the time to bed in. The guidance also reminds authorities that gathering and publishing proper evidence about the effects of schemes is essential; and that any proposal to remove a contested scheme should involve a process that genuinely refects local opinion – typically professional, representative polling. We are writing to all local authorities to underline this position.

We will reduce funding to councils which do not take active travel seriously, particularly in urban areas

This includes councils which remove schemes prematurely or without proper evidence, and councils which never installed them in the frst place. As Gear Changesaid, an authority’s performance on active travel will help determine the wider funding allocations it receives, not just on active travel. We will require more from all local authorities, urban or rural, but we will not take a one-size-fits-all approach.

(p28)

LTNs have been perhaps the most contested element of our recent cycling and walking programme – though the concept, under various names, has been widespread for decades. Many of the LTNs in England existed before 2020, in some cases since the 1970s. It is estimated that more than 25,000 road closures of the type used in LTNs existed before the pandemic.

There is now traffic data, collected by the councils concerned, from several of the early post-pandemic LTN schemes installed last summer, typically covering their frst few months. Changes in and around the LTN area can also be compared with changes in wider traffic volumes well away from it, allowing us to separate as far as possible “LTN-specifc” effects from the wider effects of the pandemic. This data is preliminary, and only gives an indication at this stage.

There is also data from longer-established schemes installed before the pandemic. In these, traffic from before the installation of the scheme is compared with traffic in the latest available year before the pandemic, usually 2019 or the fnancial year 2019/20.

In both kinds of scheme, longer-established and recent, the data shows significant reductions in traffic, and significant increases in cycling and walking, withinthe LTNs, as you would expect.

But it also shows that a common claim about the LTNs – that they simply displace traffic to other roads – is in most cases not happening. Sometimes it did happen at the beginning, as travel patterns adjusted. But now the schemes have been in place for longer, councils are also reporting reductions in traffic on most (though not yet all) of the roads aroundthe LTNs.

(p29)

LTNs work because the people living in them, several thousand in each area, change their travel behaviour – taking fewer short local journeys by car and walking or cycling more. This takes local trafficaway from the surrounding roads too. On those roads, the reduction in these local car journeys appears, in most though not in all cases, to outweigh any increase caused by the diversion of longer-distance car journeys by people passing through.

But changes in travel behaviour don’t happen overnight. We are noticing that the longer a scheme is in place, the greater its effect, on both the LTN and the surrounding roads. This is why we are clear that schemes must be given enough time to prove – or disprove – themselves.

Other claims sometimes made about LTNs are not true. Using years of data and more than 100,000 emergency callouts, academic research found that they do not increase emergency service response times – echoing statements made by the emergency services themselves about the post-pandemic LTN schemes²⁶. Indeed, they benefit public safety. New research shows that the pandemic LTN schemes have halved road injuries in their areas, compared with no reductions over the same period in non-LTN areas²⁷.

Other research has shown that LTNs reduce street crime, increasing safety by putting more pedestrians and cyclists on the streets²⁸. And they are socially inclusive: in London, people in areas of higher deprivation were 2.7 times more likely to live in a 2020 LTN compared to those in the least deprived quarter of the population²⁹.

(p30)

Multiple independent professional polls over the last year, and the government’s own polling and surveys, show consistent public support for the measures on cycling and walking we and councils have taken: more than two to one on average among those who express a preference. Support for individual schemes, such as low-traffc neighbourhoods, by people living in the areas concerned is at similar levels, whenever polled or surveyed professionally

(pp30-31)

There appears, however, to be a gap between real and perceived public opinion on this subject. One poll showed people believe that there is more opposition to these schemes than there actually is: that even though respondents themselves supported them, they believed that the public as a whole did not.

It is therefore important that consultation captures a genuinely representative picture of local views. That means listening to all, including the quieter and less vocal, not simply the most passionate; it is intended to inform decisions that members and offcers make on these schemes, not to substitute for that decision making; and the consultation materials must include proper evidence and information about the effects of the proposals.

While schemes will usually have majority support, no scheme (or indeed almost any meaningful policy of any kind) will ever have unanimous support. Some councils appear to be searching for a formula which can make meaningful cycling and walking schemes acceptable to everyone, but this does not exist. We are clear that councils must not expect or require universal support and must avoid allowing any group to exercise a veto.

We revised our Network Management Duty guidance" to state that measures should be "taken as swiftly as possible, but not at the expense of consulting local communities" and that "local residents and businesses should... be given an opportunity to comment on proposed changes" to schemes. These requirements apply as much to the removal or modification of existing schemes as to the installation of new ones. Our updated NMDguidance includes more about how to ensure that public views on contested schemes are captured accurately, through professional polling.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007619/gear-change-one-year-on.pdf

Network management duty guidance (excerpts)

(Italics and bold added.)

Monitoring and evaluation

Trial or experimental schemes should be left in place for the full duration of the temporary traffic regulation order (TTRO) or experimental traffic regulation order (ETRO), where appropriate, or where no traffic regulation order (TRO) is required, until at least 12 months’ traffic data is available and has been published. This will allow them to settle in and for changes in travel patterns and behaviours to become apparent so that an informed decision can be made. Adjustments may be necessary to take account of real-world feedback but the aim should be to retain schemes and adjust, not remove them, unless there is substantial evidence to support this.

In assessing how and in what form to make schemes permanent, authorities should collect appropriate data to build a robust evidence base on which to make decisions. This should include traffic counts, pedestrian and cyclist counts, traffic speed, air quality data, public opinion surveys and consultation responses.

Consultation and community engagement should always be undertaken whenever authorities propose to remove, modify or reduce existing schemes and whenever they propose to introduce new ones. Engagement, especially on schemes where there is public controversy, should use objective methods, such as professional polling to British Polling Council standards, to establish a truly representative picture of local views and to ensure that minority views do not dominate the discourse. Consultations are not referendums, however. Polling results should be one part of the suite of robust, empirical evidence on which decisions are made.

Source: www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19#engagement-and-consultation

Letter to council leaders

(Italics and bold added.)

To: Leaders of all combined, transport and highway authorities in England

Dear Council Leader,

Active travel schemes supported by Government funding

Over the last year, cycling has risen by 46%. In 2020, we saw the highest level of cycling on the public highway since the 1960s, and the greatest year­on-year increase in post-war history. Many people have started cycling for shorter journeys, saving appreciable amounts of pollution, noise, CO2 and traffic danger. In some cities the delivery bike has become as normal a sight as the delivery van. Even after these remarkable rises, according to one leading retailer, a further 37 per cent of the population now wants to buy a bike.

These things have been made possible, in part, by hundreds of school streets, pop-up cycle lanes, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods implemented under the Government's Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) and under statutory Network Management Duty guidance. For all the controversy these schemes can sometimes cause, there is strong and growing evidence that they command public support.

I do know that a few councils have removed, or are proposing to remove, cycle schemes installed under the fund, or to water them down. Of course I understand not every scheme is perfect and a minority will not stand the test of time, but if these schemes are not given that time to make a difference, then taxpayers’ monies have been wasted. Schemes need time to be allowed to bed in; must be tested against more normal traffic conditions; and must be in place long enough for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evaluated and understood. We have no interest in requiring councils to keep schemes which are proven not to work, but that proof must be presented. Schemes must not be removed prematurely, or without proper evidence and too soon to collect proper evidence about their effects.

As the Secretary of State stated in a letter to all local authorities in November 2020, since the peak of the emergency had passed, we now expected local authorities to consult more thoroughly. We revised our Network Management Duty (NMD) guidance to state that measures should be "taken as swiftly as possible, but not at the expense of consulting local communities" and that "local residents and businesses should... be given an opportunity to comment on proposed changes" to schemes. Please note these requirements also apply as much to the removal or modification of existing schemes as to the installation of new ones. In many cases where schemes have been removed or modified, there appears to have been little or no consultation.

The Secretary of State also stated in his November letter that consultation should include objective tests of public opinion, such as professional polling, to gather a truly representative picture of local views. Obviously the views of the local Member of Parliament should be taken into account.

Premature removal of schemes carries implications for the management of the public money used in these schemes and for the Government's future funding relationship with the authorities responsible. The Department will continue to assess authorities’ performance in delivering schemes and, following the precedent we have already set, those which have prematurely removed or weakened such schemes should expect to receive a reduced level of funding.

We are also publishing updated Network Management Duty guidance on this subject, describing in more detail the obligations of authorities to allow adequate time to evaluate schemes and to engage with local people and protected groups using professional opinion surveys, including on any proposed removal. Authorities which are proposing to remove or weaken schemes should not proceed with their plans unless they are satisfied that they have had regard to the guidance.

CHRIS HEATON-HARRIS
MINISTER OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007611/active-travel-schemes-supported-by-government-funding.pdf