Policies 2014 to 2022

Transport Planning Society response

About the Transport Planning Society

The Transport Planning Society (TPS) is the only professional body focusing entirely on transport planning in the UK.  The aim of the Society is to raise the profile of transport planning and chart a course for the profession.

Question 1: WelTAG 2022 places less emphasis on the use of cost-benefit ratios, and more emphasis on wellbeing appraisal based on the ambitions and targets in the Wales Transport Strategy. Do you have any comments on this approach?

We particularly like your statement: “… transport planning is not an exact science. It is about designing good programmes and projects that meet the needs of people in Wales, not just adding up costs and benefits”. As Transport Planning Society we don’t however think that cost-benefit ratios and wellbeing appraisal have to be exclusive. Cost-benefit ratios in many infrastructure appraisals have been extended to include, in addition to metrics related to transport efficiencies (travel times, operating costs, reliability, accidents), wider impacts be they social, environmental or economic. For example, some or many of the Welsh Government’s well-being objectives can be quantified and potentially monetised. This includes reflecting absolute values that cannot be exceeded.

What matters is how the Government’s objectives are reflected in the weighting or valuation of each of the contributing factors to the cost-benefit analysis. In that respect, the government’s intention to produce benefit cost ratios (BCRs) with and without travel time savings, is a good example of how the BCR is still a useful catch-all, but also that it is possible and desirable, to separate each of the contributing components.

We recommend the Government looks into the discussion and recommendations in the recent report by the International Transport Forum on broadening transport appraisal: https://www.itf-oecd.org/broadening-transport-appraisal . In particular, the section on ‘Modifying cost-benefit analysis’ on pages 14-17 provides good insights and useful directions.

Assessment tools have three main purposes, first in project/programme assembly to select and rank candidates, second by funders to verify eligibility for grant/revenue support, third by professionals to justify projects/programmes to senior colleagues and politicians who are the local decision makers. Transport both responds to and leads development, but also policy and transport related impacts (such as air quality and congestion). Not everything is quantifiable. That which cannot be quantified still requires professional and evidenced inputs on the influence on return on investment, ranking etc. Non-quantifiable factors can in principle be reported in terms of increasing/decreasing the calculated quantified and/or monetised return on investment.

If it is the intention to rely less on formal modelling and appraisal techniques, the evidence used to support decision-making must remain robust. There is a danger that decisions will be influenced more by what transport planners might want to see happen, rather than what analytical methods tell us is likely to happen as a result of policy, planning and project interventions. Even a ‘decide and provide’ approach needs a ‘predict’ element to ensure that the measures taken are effective. In that respect we are pleased to see your statement on page 45: “It is particularly important to support it with good data, especially if you are not providing additional benefit-cost modelling”. We hope that further guidance will be provided, including a WelTAG databook, to ensure quality and consistency.

Even with a reduced focus on benefit-cost ratios, we expect WelTAG to provide advice on tools and data sets to use, particularly where the Integrated Well-Being Appraisal requires the analysts to assess impacts that until now have received less attention. As at the moment the document contains absolutely no advice on modelling, so we expect that practice will default to TAG guidance. The Government must be clear if that is their intention. We notice that in Figure 9, reference is made to using regional transport models as sources of data for quantitative measures. It is our advice that supplementary guidance is provided on which models exist, and how to use these in a proportional manner (we understand that National Highways’ Regional Traffic Models for England have been very successful in simplifying and speeding up appraisals).

The Transport Planning Society finally recommends that a reduced emphasis on cost-benefit ratios requires not just changes in the appraisal methods, but also on how decision-makers use the results from modelling, appraisal and other analytics. This involves confidence in decision-making under uncertainty.

Question 2: WelTAG 2022 introduces a new Stage 0 Case for Change and suggests that it should be done by the in-house team. Do you have comments on this?

As a professional society TPS recommends clear ownership and accountability by the right players and at the right time in any of the processes involved in transport planning. Therefore, carrying out stage 0 in-house make excellent sense.

The proposed approach reminds us of the ‘Aqua Book: guidance on producing quality analysis for Government’, released in 2015. The document contains practical advice on responsibilities both within and outside of government, with the aim of ensuring more robust quantitative analysis. We recommend the government takes note: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-aqua-book-guidance-on-producing-quality-analysis-for-government

If the in-house team assumes responsibility, sufficient skills should be ensured. There is a general skills shortage in transport appraisal throughout the UK, and as the TPS we recommend that the Welsh Government invests in its in-house capabilities. Transport Scotland is a strong supporter of the Chartered Transport Planning professional qualification, and the Professional Development Scheme that underpins this accreditation. Our Skills Director would be pleased to explore with you how the Transport Planning Society, and the CTPP qualification, could ensure that in-house teams are sufficiently trained and have the appropriate competencies.

The proposed stage 0 has such similarities with the DfT’s ‘strategic dimension’ (‘the section of the business case that describes how the transport proposal contributes to achieving strategic priorities and how it aligns with existing portfolios, programmes and projects in the DfT, across government and in the geographical area(s) of scope. This dimension sets out the strategic context for the proposal and therefore provides an overarching framework for the business case’) that we believe stage 0 would benefit from clarifying how it is intended to be used differently in the Welsh context.

Other similarities exist with how Oxfordshire County Council intends to implement a decide and provide approach to transport assessment. Their September 2022 document identifies many similar considerations that stage 0 aims to address and we recommend you read it to identify practical advice that can be transferred to WelTAG: https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/documents/s62102/CA_SEP2022R12%20Annex%201_Implementing%20Decide%20and%20Provide%20-%20TA%20Requirements.pdf

Question 3: Would it be beneficial to use WelTAG at a strategic or programme level? If so, what types of transport interventions might best benefit from a strategic WelTAG approach?

In our experience, the main problem in the appraisal of strategies or programmes is that it is important, but difficult, to separate out the contributions of individual components – some may be complementary, some my work against each other. Guidance is required on how you expect this to be handled when programmes or strategies are assessed.

If WelTAG is used at strategic or programme level, it remains critical that any inputs into the quantification of benefits is supported by an analytical or modelling approach that is transparent, defensible and robust. This will require a clear statement, and possibly peer review, of the mechanisms used to reflect strategies and the assumptions made.

The document refers regularly to evidence-based assessments of benefits but is non-committal on how these will be derived. We expect a whole range of evidence will be claimed and supported by different levels of robustness in data or in the techniques used to analyse these. We welcome innovation and challenges to the status quo prescribed in TAG, but moving away from tried-and-tested has risks, too. Any alternative approaches must be tested and peer-assessed, to ensure that decisions will continue to be based on evidence rather than wishful thinking or worse, manipulation.

In all cases, uncertainty needs to be allowed for, through the development and application of scenario modelling. A decision needs to be made by the Welsh Government whether the DfT’s Common Analytical Scenarios will be applied (all of them or a subset), or if specific scenarios should be developed in support of Welsh projects, reflecting uncertainties pertinent to Wales.

Question 4: WelTAG 2022 provides guidance on aligning transport planning and land use planning. What are the key issues and how could we address them in the guidance?

The TPS is a strong advocate for the integration of land use and transport planning, and many of our previous reports (for example, State of the Nations (2020 – https://tps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/State-of-the-Nation-FINAL-v2.pdf and our response to the Department for Transport’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan in 2021 – https://tps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/TPS-Response-to-TDP-and-COP.pdf ) have made the point that by their integration many of the Government’s objectives can be met more easily (including decarbonisation but also objectives related to health and equality).

We believe the greatest challenge in modelling and appraisal of aligned land use and transport planning is the representation of the land use response to alternative transport interventions. A successful integrated approach will require each project or programme alternative to have different, project-specific land use development patterns. Here again we repeat our warning that, also for integrated land use and transport planning, the assumptions of such land use responses must reflect what is likely to happen, rather than what would be desirable (the latter may not be achievable).

The benefits of integrating land use and transport planning extend beyond just the shortening of trips, and its impact on e.g., decarbonisation targets. There are wider transport efficiencies. By reducing the length of trips that people need to make to satisfy their daily needs, new and mainly active modes come into play: walking, cycling and emerging micro-modes, reducing the carbon impacts of transport even further.

From a policy perspective, we suggest that the government considers an alternative approach to integration than usually pursued: this is to let land use plans follow transport policy and investment rather than the usual situation in which transport projects are developed to support land use plans. This may be a better way to reduce the transport intensity of new development patterns.

That said, the greatest opportunity lies in transitioning existing communities, which are not fulfilling the Welsh Government’s core values, into sustainable communities. How do we transform existing semi-functional community environments into harmonized sustainable communities focusing on public, active, and shared transport, promoting healthy living, and economic growth? WelTAG as presented focuses on future planning, not retrofitting. The transition plan for each individual element required to transition a current community to a healthy sustainable community may not necessarily be able to demonstrate value for money or demonstrable improvements in line with the core strategic WelTAG values at each of the project delivery stages. For existing transformational strategic projects, encompassing both land use and transport planning, WelTAG would need to be focused firmly at the strategic level.

Question 5: WelTAG 2022 introduces a proportionate approach to appraisal through three levels of detail, WelTAG lite, WelTAG standard and WelTAG plus. Most projects in Wales, including most active travel projects, should use WelTAG lite. Do you have comments on this approach?

The proportionate approach underpins much of TAG – although there has been a tendency to play it safe, and to make appraisal more complex than has often been required. We therefore welcome the Welsh Government’s explicit statement that for most projects in Wales it will be sufficient to sue WelTAG Lite, giving confidence to promotors and their consultants that a simpler approach is best.

In the case of WelTAG Lite, we note that stages 1-3 are proposed to be combined into one report. As TPS we believe that this leads to the risk of up-front exclusion of options; whereas options generation is a critical part of appraisal. Criticism in the Green Book review was directed at business cases arriving too early at a limited set of options. There is also a risk of ignoring negative and unintended impacts – and as a remedy we suggest that the template or guidance sets out the expectation that identifying these secondary impacts is an explicit requirement. The Strategic Outline Case is relevant for WelTAG Lite also; and should not be ignored.

We are pleased to see the use of gateway reviews. We recommend that one such review takes place early enough to provide evidence that the Lite, Standard or Plus approach that was originally assumed to be appropriate, is indeed suitable now further details of the project including qualitative and quantitative analyses of costs and benefits have emerged.

Guidance will be required when determining whether to follow the WelTAG Lite, WelTAG Standard or WelTAG Plus route. We recommend that, rather than approaching the need for more or less complexity on the basis of project costs, this is done by an explicit assessment and reporting of the anticipated complexity of the responses to and benefits of a transport intervention (project, policy or program) in stage 0, 1 or 2.

It is disconcerting to note that in Figure 7, modelling is limited to just WelTAG Plus. We accept that in both WelTAG Lite and WelTAG Standard, modelling should be less intense and data requirements less comprehensive, enabling a faster and lower cost turnaround (and the DfT’s TAG proportionate approach also recognises this). But we don’t support that appraisal is defensible where no modelling, no structured, repeatable quantification of project, plan or programme impacts has taken place. This is where additional guidance is most necessary.

Finally, guidance is required when dealing with different types of projects, and particularly projects aimed at different modes For example road vs bus vs rail, or the introduction of new modes that may support or extract from traditional modes. Existing TAG guidance is not existent or inconsistent, and the WelTAG guidance as presented is silent on the different modal requirements for modelling and value for money assessment. This needs addressing when assessing projects or programmes that are modally integrated (such as e-scooters at stations), as we expect to be increasingly the case. It would be easy to call for more detailed modelling – but it should be possible as an alternative to describe the potential unintended consequences and whether they strengthen or weaken the case.

Question 6: We are developing technical guidance to accompany the main guidance. Can you suggest specific tables or templates that would be helpful? Which particular topics would benefit from further guidance?

As opposed to the DfT’s highly technical TAG strategic modelling and appraisal guidance, the new WelTAG majors on the principles of how appraisal must support decision-making, but is light on directions on how to do this well. It is possible to continue to rely on TAG to provide such details on methodology, underpinning data and reasonable assumptions. But TPS believes that Wales-specific model guidance would strengthen the delivery of robust WelTAG appraisals. This includes templates for minimum data and model requirements for WelTAG Lite, WelTAG Standard and WelTAG Plus, and a databook with Wales-specific parameters for use. Given the thoroughness of TAG, we suggest extensive referencing to those documents.

Many practical modelling and appraisal debates are driven by disagreements around assumptions about the future that are inputs to strategic modelling and appraisal As such, we suggest a strong and mandatory Assumptions Log to be produced and signed off by the project sponsor. This should not be left to the consultants building the supporting models – key assumptions with substantial bearings on appraisal results are often buried in the tools themselves, or in report appendices. They are too important to be overlooked.

In terms of topics for further guidance, we base our answer on work done for National Highways on improving their ability a) to support NH staff with modelling, analytics and appraisal; b) to respond to emerging issues that require modelling and analysis and c) make best use of new technologies and innovations to respond to issues a) and b). We recommend providing guidance on the following topics:

• Dealing with freight
• Integration of land use and transport planning
• Reflecting uncertainty in appraisal, at all levels

See (The future of transport modelling: a structured approach for identifying future innovation areas – C Rohr, T Pollard, Mott MacDonald; T Metcalfe, A Stoneman, WSP; R Himlin, M Boother, National Highways; T van Vuren, Veitch Lister Consulting; L Oakes-Ash, City Science, UK – https://aetransport.org/past-etc-papers/search-all-etc-conference-papers?abstractId=7640&state=b )

Question 7: Do you have any other comments or feedback on the draft WelTAG 2022 guidance?

We support the more easily accessible wording of the new WelTAG guidance, compared with the more technocratic language in the DfT’s TAG documents. However, this may risk a of lack of precision and the possibility of confusion and (accidental or purposed) misuse. These are our main observations where this may occur, and we suggest a more careful wording to reflect the government’s exact objectives in the document:

• Page 2: ‘groups of sustainable travel interventions’. This suggests that all interventions will be sustainable. We anticipate that WelTAG will itself identify whether a proposal is sustainable, rather than that being an up-front expectation. Sustainability needs to be defined.
• Page 2: ‘an affordable, sustainable, efficient transport system’. It can be argued that an efficient transport system minimises travel times, and that therefore travel time reductions should feature strongly in the decision-maker’s support. We understand this is not your intention, and we suggest that the term efficient is defined in advance
• Page 2: The percentage of journeys by sustainable transport has been set to 48% by 2040. We believe it is more important to state and develop policies and programs that achieve a percentage of overall miles travelled to be reduced, preferably to this same level. If these 48% are mainly short journeys this will lead to much smaller sustainability benefits than if these are representative of the mean or median distance travelled per trip.
• Page 2: ‘all projects and programs funded … must address behaviour change’. The term behaviour change can mean different things to different people. Think for example of drivers changing their mode of travel to sustainable alternatives. This can be achieved by making car travel more difficult or alternatives cheaper without actually changing behaviour. Behaviour change would involve a re-evaluation of how people value the need to travel and the alternatives available to do it. The recent House of Lords report ‘In our hands: behaviour change for climate and environmental goals’ suggests that without changes to people’s behaviours now, the target of net zero by 2050 is not achievable. We strongly suggest making it clearer what the government’s behaviour change objectives are exactly.
• Page 3 and in general: Well-being is at the heart of the proposed improvements to WelTAG but is not defined. To enable SMART objectives to be set and evaluated, TPS suggests that this term is defined more clearly, so that quantification is not just possible but always considered. SMART needs to be properly implemented, not just be a good intention poorly implemented.
• Page 4: Under the Value-for-Money header, five criteria are set out that the government will use to consider supporting a programme or project. The TPS supports this approach, and the criteria, but neither individually nor combined do these cover value for money. For example, a particular project can deliver in all five dimensions, but another project could satisfy these dimensions better, faster, cheaper, or with less risk. The term Value for Money also creates an expectation that a project or programme’s performance against the five dimensions can be monetised – and we understand that this being expressed through a BCR is exactly what the new WelTAG aims to avoid. Our advice is that quantification of impacts remains a key element of appraisal in WelTAG, to enable such comparisons to be carried out.
• Page 5: This same concern arises under the ‘Integrated well-being appraisal’ heading. Although you state clearly that the appraisal should answer four simple questions, this only shows that a project or programme meets the government’s objectives, but not how well. To order or sift proposals for priority and progression, this level of fit should be quantified.
• Figure 1. The increase in efficiency of transport freight by 4% needs to be defined – in numbers of trips, in miles or in emissions?
• Page 9: TPS is pleased to see that in the enhanced WelTAG document, specific attention is paid to the need for delivery and evaluation. This is often lacking in current appraisal practice.
• Page 13: We repeat our concern that meeting the five value-for-money criteria cannot be equated with demonstrating value for money, let alone good value for money. There will have to be a mechanism for prioritising and sifting alternative or even competing schemes and programmes.
• Page 15: We are very pleased to see, in Figure 3, attention paid to existing infrastructure, and a commitment to upgrade in support of modal shift. We expect that increasingly appraisal will need to be applied to existing infrastructure in need of maintenance, improvement or replacement, which will inevitably include highway infrastructure. In that respect we repeat what we stated in The TPS’s response to the consultation to update the Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development (circular 02/2013) (https://tps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/TPS-formatted-response-to-strategic-road-network-for-website.pdf), that efficient roads need to, and can, cater for more than just motorised traffic.
• Page 27: We disagree with the explanation of what a do-minimum representation is. A do-minimum option is not just about maintaining existing infrastructure, it is meant to reflect committed or likely to have been constructed changes (transport, land use and policy) that affect the project under consideration. Particularly how its need, operation and hence value for money is influenced by these. If the assumed do-minimum is just maintaining existing infrastructure, each project and policy will be assessed in isolation from the wider government policy and how that is being implemented in advance of a scheme coming on-line.
• Page 60: We welcome the explicit requirement to report on stakeholder engagement as part of the business case for each project, including whether the project is acceptable to different groups, and how their views were taken into account in designing the project.
• Page 77: In the Quality checklists for WelTAG reports, advice is lacking on how WelTAG Plus differs from WelTAG Standard. This needs addressing.
• Page 84: Under Modelling and technical appraisal, reference is made to induced demand. There is much confusion in practice what induced demand is, and a careful definition would be beneficial. The example that increased road capacity might result in additional traffic is dealt with well and robustly in TAG guidance, and in strategic transport models that have been developed along TAG guidelines. Generally, induced demand does not need special attention if the model approach is appropriate for the project or policy under investigation. For example, including departure time, mode destination and strategic re-routing responses for the most complex schemes.
• Page 87: We welcome this explicit naming of relevant policy documents, as this is sometimes difficult to achieve in isolation. TPS suggests that this list is kept up to date and accessible from the internet as a dynamic resource, similar to the current TAG databook.

Question 8: Do you have any suggestions for how the governance of WelTAG might be improved in order to ensure that studies are high quality, meet the needs of users and represent good value for money?

The TPS has three recommendations for ensuring that studies are high quality, meet the needs of users and represent good value for money.

1. All studies should be supported by peer review or a critical friend, who can be the honest broker between the sponsor, their consultants and the government. This role is well-established in the USA and has been employed successfully in certain projects in the UK as well – such as for the Sheffield supertram and in Liverpool when developing a walking and cycling modelling tool. A register of trusted advisers could be set up. We believe that this is particularly relevant when considering the make-up of the suggested Review Group on page 61, which should include data, analytics and modelling experts, as well as the identified policy and local experts. The five ways of working, promoted on page 63, make the point that it must be ensured that the WelTAG process takes a long-term view by providing the data and analysis to understand the longer-term impacts of the programme or project. We cannot see how this can be achieved without some form of modelling; not modelling will implicitly assume that the long-term future will be the same as now.
2. Taking this one step further Government should externalise the responsibility for modelling and appraisal, away from the project team. This would not just enhance the independence of the analytical team, it would also increase credibility of this work to outside stakeholders. A mechanism would need to be established to ensure collaboration, which could be the peer reviewer or critical friend described above.
3. Increasing internal, in-house skills. As the TPS we recommend that the Welsh Government invests in its in-house capabilities. Transport Scotland is a strong supporter of the Chartered Transport Planning professional qualification, and the Professional Development Scheme that underpins this accreditation. Our Skills Director would be pleased to explore with you how the Transport Planning Society and the CTPP qualification, could ensure that in-house teams are sufficiently trained and have the appropriate competencies.

As TPS we welcome the promise of a set of quality checklists to make sure that the information in WelTAG reports is relevant and fit for purpose. Once provided, we would be pleased to assess these, provide you with our considered views, and promote them as good practice among our membership.

We look forward to seeing the intended further guidance documents, including the model brief to commission studies from consultants. We believe that other jurisdictions would benefit from these, too.

Download: The Welsh transport appraisal guidance (WelTAG) 2022 consultation

Transport Planning Society response

About the Transport Planning Society

The Transport Planning Society (TPS) is the only professional body focusing entirely on transport planning in the UK.  The aim of the Society is to raise the profile of transport planning and chart a course for the profession.

Introduction

The Transport Planning Society (TPS) commends the government for publishing its ‘One Year On’ report on its Transport Decarbonisation Plan, ‘Decarbonising Transport – A Better, Greener Britain’ (henceforth, TDP). The TPS has produced this response, bringing together expertise from board members and the wider TPS membership.

We have presented our response in sections we think are most important in relation to decarbonising transport and the TDP update. We then address specific sections of the TDP update where we have comments to make. We have also included analysis from our membership survey, demonstrating importance of decarbonisation to our members.

Our response to the original TDP can be found on our website.

We have also recently published an initial response to the government’s recent ‘Growth Plan 2022’. We raise this here because the accelerated plans for road building set out in the Growth Plan do not necessarily support the aspirations of growth (see response for full details) and are completely at odds with the aspiration to decarbonise the transport network. They will undermine the TDP and all efforts to mitigate climate change.

We welcome the fact that the government remains committed to the decarbonisation agenda and that, as detailed in the update, progress has been made at least in the area of technology and the switch to electric vehicles. Yet while there has been technological progress, there is still a very long way to go and the one-year on update reports little real progress on many of the most crucial issues:

• Planning and transport integration
• Behaviour change
• Changes to funding
• Emissions accounting
• Adaptation
• Building professional capacity

Technological measures such as a transfer to different fuels and electrification are all important, but on their own they will not achieve the scale, speed or nature of change required. Technology needs to be part of a wider strategy as set out in the initial TDP. The government’s update unfortunately focuses on progress on the technology side of the strategy. It is essential that spatial and behavioural factors are progressed so that society as a whole embraces the actions that must be taken.

Speed and building resilience are also of the absolute essence – even in the recent months of 2022 we have seen dramatic and largely unpredictable changes in the national and global climate situation, with extreme heatwaves in the UK and severe flooding in Pakistan to name just a couple of examples. Taking the progress set out in the TDP update and the evidence for the intensification of climate change impacts, we are not reassured that the government is doing sufficiently to facilitate a fast enough transition.

This response sets out the TPS’s views on areas where the government’s strategy and action needs to be strengthened to enable and deliver the rapid changes we need to see to minimise the impacts of climate change.

TPS membership survey answers on policy topics

We will begin by looking at the views of our membership. The TPS surveyed its members this year asking several policy-focused questions. Climate change and decarbonising transport are important to respondents.

When asked:

• How they thought the government and industry was doing on decarbonisation, only 46% rated it well or very well. It is important for the government that professionals have confidence in what it’s doing and feel that their own efforts to address climate change are supported by the national context.
• On the greatest threats (multiple could be selected) to the transport network, 62% ticked ‘Climate change and adverse weather’ – the most votes of any option. See our section in this response on the importance of adaptability and resilience, ‘Adaptation should be more recognised in decarbonisation efforts’.
• When selecting their top five transport policy drivers, ‘Decarbonising the transport sector’ was decisively the top answer with 72% of respondents selecting it.
  • The next four most popular answers were: 2. Using spatial planning policy to reduce the need to travel, 3. ensuring the transport network contributes to healthier lifestyles, 4. improving bus and rail journey time reliability, and 5. optimising the use of the existing transport system. All of these align with decarbonising transport and progress in these areas should feature in the government’s next update report.
•  ‘At national level: Assuming transport will have to generate new income streams, and setting aside legal and administrative issues, which of the following do you think should be prioritised in the next five years?’. The top 3 responses were (in order):
  • Introduce national road user pricing for all vehicles
  • Increase the scope and raise the level of tax on aviation
  • Introduce a national parking space levy.
  These responses show the desire for income generation to dovetail with deterring the most polluting forms of transport, which would make the system more equitable. Cars are hungry resource consumers, not only in fuel but also for road space and for parking whether on highway or in public and private car parks, whilst aviation is of course a huge carbon producer.

These responses show how important transport decarbonisation is to our members – transport planning professionals – as well as illustrating specific measures and policies that they support to achieve that. We invite the government to engage with us and our members to work together to achieve the TDP’s goals.

Key issues for the TPS

Decarbonising transport through places: A place-based approach to decarbonising transport must be central

The effective integration of spatial and transport planning is fundamental to the swift and equitable decarbonisation of transport and must be given more resourcing and focus than the update suggests. The proposed review of the National Planning Policy Framework provides a unique opportunity to address this, and we hope the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) uses it effectively.

Communities and businesses generate demand for transport, the response of the providers of transport infrastructure and services determine in part the competitiveness and sustainability of those communities, as well as how low-carbon and active they are. The interaction between spatial and transport planning can create virtuous development in which transport shapes and further improves the economic and social success of those communities. It is important that transport and spatial planning provide low and zero carbon options that are the most attractive and easy options, and we would like to see this recognised and delivered in future updates.

Local transport plans

The Local Transport Plans (LTPs) guidance is being prepared to ensure a coherent transport framework. LTPs will be a vital tool to realise the government’s decarbonisation plans, as well as other place making and health objectives. To achieve this, the government should ensure the LTP guidance facilitates, if not requires, clear current and future networks for walking, cycling and public transport, that can then be linked to development locations both current and proposed for the future.

The government should also consider integrating the proposed local authority electric vehicle charging infrastructure strategy into the LTPs. Additionally, a parking strategy is a critical part of the LTP for every local authority to decarbonise. Finally, the opportunity should also be taken to formally link the LTP to the Local Plan. We hope these suggestions can be incorporated in the forthcoming guidance on LTPs.

Public transport and place

Places need transport and transport frequently shapes places. Liveable places with good local access to facilities and services and a healthy environment require a reduction in car use and increased use of active travel and shared transport modes.

However, public transport is in crisis, financially and in respect of declining confidence of the users. Customers must feel confident that services adequate for their needs will continue to be available and that public transport is safe in relation to COVID-19, as well as declining user volumes. As a result, we are seeing the network decline in some places, rather than growing, which is what is needed to achieve net-zero.

A concerted effort from central government, local government and public and shared transport providers will be required for public transport networks to grow in size and patronage. User confidence in public transport must be rebuilt, and the appetite for other shared mobility solutions including car-sharing, car clubs and Demand Responsive Transport needs to be fostered.

With good planning involving all relevant stakeholders, a virtuous cycle could be created. Greater use of buses and active travel will reduce car ownership and use, which will allow the land allocated for parking to be released and places improved. Recent analysis has estimated that on average private cars spend 96% of their time not being used. This is not only economically inefficient, but also wasteful of land used for car parking in commercial or industrial areas, whether privately or publicly owned, and of kerb-space where priority should be for servicing and maintenance vehicles wherever feasible.

The design, availability and accessibility of the whole transport network should be an integral part of the planning and design of places from the beginning, influencing the choices people make and the way they live.

Behaviour change

Behaviour change is recognised in the TDP update as part of the walking and cycling programme going forward but it needs to have a much wider role across the whole transport agenda. The need for delivering decarbonisation of transport is not wholly understood by many people. Changing attitudes leading to actual behaviour change will be critical.

Some of this can occur through effective integrated spatial and transport planning that properly engages the community. In this country, there are few exemplars and without positive examples, decision-makers are reluctant to take what they believe is a risk while the public is sceptical. Carrying out a pilot approach working closely with a community as to how to change attitudes and behaviours would be a strong way to deliver decarbonisation through places. It could also demonstrate the benefits of spatial and transport planning-based behaviour change interventions. Pilots could also incorporate an element of working with the local people to produce their own decarbonisation strategy. Working hand in glove with the local community improves both understanding and the drive to action changes. Such a project may be even more informative if carried out in both a unitary authority and a two-tier authority separately, to explore the different needs of each and to test which approaches work best in the different governance contexts.

The TPS was involved in an excellent, informative project with the Royal College of Art; Our Future Towns, which sought to test this type of approach and we advise the government to review and consider this further. These pilots on supporting community behaviour change could be part of the next phase linked to the Local Authority Decarbonisation Toolkit Revisions. The absence of mention of progress on these toolkit revisions with DLUHC, as proposed in the original strategy, does lead us to assume there has been little, which is disappointing.

The government should explore establishing an equivalent body to Active Travel England (ATE) to push this wider behaviour change programme.

Changes to transport funding are necessary

While we welcome the update’s mention of new funding for various schemes, it feels depressingly insufficient given policies that essentially subsidise polluting modes of transport, chiefly through the continued existence of the fuel duty freeze and aviation sector subsidies (sources 1, 2 & 3). A wealth of funding could be unlocked for active travel and other decarbonisation schemes through changing these policies that undermine the entire TDP.

We would like to see changes to funding in TDP updates, giving truly additional and substantial funding and subsidy to active and sustainable transport across the UK and removing it from polluting modes such as Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles and airplanes.

It is pertinent to return to the TPS’ members survey question that asked, ‘assuming transport will have to generate new income streams, and setting aside legal and administrative issues, which of the following do you think should be prioritised in the next five years?’, and to which the top 3 responses were (in order): introduce national road user pricing for all vehicles, increase the scope and raise the level of tax on aviation, introduce a national parking space levy. Again, these responses show that, among professionals, there is a desire to change the sources of income from transport to target the most polluting and harmful modes and redress the inequity in current subsidy and financial penalisation structures.

Transport for London (TfL) funding

It is also frustrating that the aforementioned subsidies for road and aviation exist alongside a funding crisis for TfL. Of course, we absolutely want high-quality transport to be funded across the whole country, yet it is a shame that TfL, as a beacon of good practice, has seen its funding so drastically cut that it has thrown the future of many active and sustainable transport schemes and business-as-usual into uncertainty.

Although the government and TfL have now reached a funding agreement, the regional transport body will still likely see an increase in fares and service cuts, potentially creating a vicious circle of decline. In addition, the lack of funding will likely cause delays in the delivery of decarbonisation schemes that, due to the scale of London’s transport network, could have a big impact on the UK’s decarbonisation.

The transport authority had been delivering an efficient and effective service until the loss of revenue grant from central government following several years of budget restraints, severely impacting its operations. TfL earns a far higher proportion (over 70%) of its revenue from fares than any other world leading transport authority (where the range is 20% to 50% with a median of around a third). TfL had developed into an efficiently run organisation. During the pandemic it merited sufficient funding from the government to tide it over the financial difficulties of substantial loss of fares revenue whilst managing a transition to a sustainable funding model.

It is short-sighted of the government not to maintain sufficient funding to allow TfL to properly and strategically adapt its services to the evolving levels of post-pandemic demand. Doing this and encouraging TfL to maintain the exemplary service planning methods it has built up, would allow it to respond to the dual climate and cost-of-living crises, rather than letting services deteriorate and enter a spiral of decline.

Adaptation should be more recognised in decarbonisation efforts

As we have seen this year with the severe heatwaves in the UK and extreme weather around the globe, the impacts of climate change are being felt ever more strongly, and worse and sooner than previously predicted. Government needs to take adaptation, resilience and scenario planning seriously – adaptation in terms of the impacts of climate change on our ability to deliver decarbonised transport and the resiliency of our decarbonised transport network. The National Adaptation Plan (NAP) is briefly mentioned in the TDP, but adaptation is not mentioned at all in the update.

While we recognise decarbonisation is different from adaptation, the two are strongly linked. For example, all the new infrastructure being built in efforts to decarbonise should be resilient to the worst predicted impacts of climate change that will occur during their lifespan – we are going to experience worsening weather effects regardless of how successful the UK’s transport decarbonisation efforts are because efforts to reach net-zero by 2050 are to keep global warming within 2°C, which is still an increase in temperature compared to now. It would be welcome for the update to include acknowledgement and reassurance that the work to advance decarbonisation will itself be resilient and long-lasting. As it is, the NAP seems somewhat out of sight, out of mind.

Emissions accounting needs to be improved

While it is of course positive to see, as the update notes, that transport sector emissions have dropped, this doesn’t mean they decreased across the board. Some preliminary research found that, despite the change in travel habits during the pandemic leading to a decrease in emissions, it has been accompanied by a larger increase in residential energy consumption as many worked from home. It is important that the TDP facilitates genuine emissions decreases across the board while continuing to move people around alongside ensuring the shift to increased telecommunications is also low carbon, by not being siloed from the buildings sector.

The TDP sets out many excellent programmes, projects and innovations that will all contribute towards reducing carbon emissions. However, we do not know if the sum total of these schemes will bring us to net-zero because there is little information about the predicted carbon savings of each in the TDP, nor the savings realised thus far in the update. The update contains only one mention of saved tonnes of CO2 (presumably annual) resulting from an Arup / Liftshare scheme in Solihull.

We recognise that forecasting and measuring transport emissions, especially related to active travel, are incredibly complex and hard to do, and in many cases, estimates will be the best we can achieve. However, the TDP updates should be doing more to demonstrate actual tonnes of CO2(e) savings, while strengthening the forecasting of TDP schemes’ CO2 impact, in order to identify what else is needed to truly get us to net-zero by 2050, if not sooner.

Professional capacity must be built and maintained

The government must ensure that the training and education pipeline of planning and transport professionals is sufficient so there will be future capacity to deliver net-zero carbon. Without skilled people in the profession, we cannot expect to deliver good quality transport schemes that will achieve net-zero carbon and other co-benefits.

The TPS has provided comprehensive discussion and recommendations about this topic in its response to the DfT’s Labour market and skills consultation. We would like to see this mentioned in future updates.

TDP update section 1: Decarbonising all forms of transport

Overarching comments

A broader definition and discussion of active travel

Buses and trains facilitate active travel for passengers. Almost every single bus or train journey involves at least one walk trip. We would like to see this recognised in TDP updates. Together, public transport, cycling and walking should be recognised as a broader category of active travel that might be termed “healthier journeys”, or “sustainable and healthy travel”.

The majority of active travel trips, including bus/coach trips, necessarily make use of the highway network. Infrastructure provision (including cycle and bus lanes), maintenance and roadspace allocation therefore have significant impacts on quality and rate of adoption of all of these modes. Even if a road project is primarily aimed at improving conditions for cars, there are supporting measures that can be taken to improve the viability of public transport and active modes. These considerations should apply to the program of accelerated road schemes in The Growth Plan 2022 if they go ahead.

Pricing public transport

There are examples of public transport support schemes that are successful and transferrable, such as Vienna’s long running model, which includes a one euro per day travel card (as an annual pass available to residents). Austria also launched a similar flat-rate public transport fares scheme for the whole country in 2021.

The UK government should explore financial assistance to public transport passengers and providers in the UK. This will initially support citizens through the cost-of-living crisis, and in the long-term will encourage mode shift, reduce carbon emissions and increase passenger revenues to achieve financial sustainability. As we can see from the Austrian example, strategic design and delivery of such schemes is vital to their success.

Walking and cycling

We are pleased to see that Active Travel England (ATE) has been launched and already begun work announcing funding for schemes across England. We look forward to hearing about more progress as the new body becomes fully established and finds its feet.

Buses, coaches and other shared transport modes

Coaches that are on scheduled services provide an inter-urban network that is more affordable for people with low household incomes but also reaches the parts that railways currently do not reach and probably never will in the less populated parts of the UK. As such, as well as being important for travel equity, they are another key part of decarbonising transport through providing a lower carbon alternative to individual car or air travel; and that can itself be further decarbonised (i.e. through electrification). We welcome the government new call for evidence to better understand how to decarbonise coaches and minibuses and would like to see more news about developments in this space, including support for this mode in future updates.

We welcome the update that the government will be offering funding to boost sales of plug-in wheelchair accessible vehicles. We would like to see more updates on low-carbon shared transport modes, which contribute massively to providing publicly available mobility and access for disabled people who are unable to use mainstream buses and trains. Shared transport includes various forms of Demand Responsive Transport ranging from charitable community transport groups to prospectively commercial services using advanced digital technology.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are many positive updates we are pleased to see in the One Year on Report. However, we feel it shows that, so far, the most substantive progress is being made in the realm of technology, which is important, but is only one piece of a comprehensive puzzle.

This puzzle must have behaviour change woven throughout it and utilise the relationship between spatial and transport planning as a core, foundational approach in healthy, equitable decarbonisation, more so than the TDP update suggests is happening. This approach should be underpinned by greater understanding of current emissions and of the forecast carbon impact of projects, which is currently lacking in the TDP, as is the sufficient incorporation of adaptation, which must be recognised now.

Yet, all of the efforts of the TDP are undermined as long as financial subsidies and levies continue to favour the most polluting modes of private cars and planes while public transport faces various fare and funding challenges that threaten its ability to play the role it must in decarbonising transport. This situation must change if the UK is to meet its net-zero targets, both in terms of cutting the emissions of those most polluting modes and in securing funding to deliver the massive changes needed in promoting and using healthy and sustainable modes.

Lead author: Rose Yorke Barber. Key contributors: Lynda Addison, John Carr, Tom van Vuren, Alex Bennet. The Transport Planning Society (TPS) is the professional association for Transport Planners in the UK and Republic of Ireland. We represent 1,600 individual members and 38 businesses in the profession.

Download: Decarbonising Transport – A Better, Greener Britain: One Year On

The Transport Planning Society’s review of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Growth Plan 2022

27 September 2022

A few days ago, on 23 September, Kwasi Kwarteng published his Growth Plan 2022, firmly concentrating on stimulating economic growth. This review by the Transport Planning Society focuses on the transport policy and infrastructure aspects of the plan only.

Infrastructure as a driver of economic growth

In the Growth Plan the government commits to speed up the delivery of infrastructure by

• reducing the burden of environmental assessments
• reducing bureaucracy in the consultation process
• reforming habitats and species regulations
• increasing flexibility to make changes to a DCO once it has been submitted.

Considerations of the impact of transport infrastructure and policy on the environment, today but also in the longer-term future, and inclusive consultation are cornerstones of the current planning process that should not be lightly undermined for growth. The causal link between transport improvements, and particular road improvements, and the economy is broken.

Recent studies elsewhere have postulated that public investments in road infrastructure have non-significant effects on economic growth¹; whilst other studies suggest a weakening influence of road networks (and transport more generally) on location choice by residents and employers, and hence the economy².

The importance of consultation and engagement

Environmental assessments and consultations are neither an unnecessary burden nor excessively bureaucratic. Low traffic neighbourhoods, the heated debates on their pros and cons, associated vandalism and legal wranglings following their introduction illustrate the importance and value of considered consultation. TPS does not expect that diminished consultation will reduce delivery timescales for controversial infrastructure projects, in fact quite the opposite. In Wales, the review of WelTAG³, published less than two months ago, instead insists on engagement and consultation, going as far as promoting a direct involvement or participation in developing and delivering infrastructure projects.

Using National Policy Statements well

The Growth Plan announces that the government will prioritise the delivery of National Policy Statements for national networks, and a cross-government action plan for reform of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure planning system. The Transport Planning Society welcomes these National Policy Statements and reforms to the planning system, subject to understanding the details. A National Transport Strategy is long overdue. However, we are concerned about suggested reforms to accelerate roads delivery, including by consenting more through the Highways Act 1980 and by considering options for changing the Judicial Review system to avoid claims which cause unnecessary delays to delivery.

Given road transport’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, road expansion needs to remain carefully scrutinized, and its business case always reflect that increased road capacity generates additional traffic⁴. The Society takes the view that instead of expansion, the focus should be on maintenance of the existing highway assets and making better use of these.

Valuing travel times – or not

By mistakenly relying on transport infrastructure, and particularly road infrastructure, to stimulate growth by reducing travel times and removing congestion, the government may sacrifice many of the safeguards that have been put in place to avoid disproportionate damage to the environment and the population’s well-being.

Contrast this with the recent ministerial statement on the review of WelTAG, Welsh Transport Appraisal Guidance:

… precipitated by ministerial concerns that the value placed by appraisals on driver journey time savings has led to outcomes directly contrary to some of Welsh Government’s highest priorities, including addressing climate change and toxic air pollution by reducing traffic and achieving mode shift, and improving public health through higher levels of walking and cycling…. it would be perverse to consider these time savings as a benefit without fully accounting for the offsetting disbenefits.

The Society also invites the Chancellor to look across the border to Scotland where, rather than stimulating traffic growth, the government has set a vehicle km reduction target of 20% by 2030⁵.

Accelerating the right infrastructure projects

The Transport Planning Society also notes the infrastructure projects that the government will prioritise for acceleration. We will not be the only ones that have calculated that the list contains 86 roads projects, 10 rail projects, only 16 local transport projects and 2 decarbonisation projects.

The Growth Plan 2022 is in danger of becoming a transport emissions growth plan, contradicting the government’s intentions set out in 2021 in ‘Decarbonising transport: a better, greener Britain’. We suggest that the designs for any of the road’s projects listed for possible acceleration also include safe provision for active mode alternatives, and reflect the needs of all sustainable modes including public transport.

The growth agenda needs to be balanced against net zero commitments in the Transport Decarbonisation Plan and must promote levelling up so that everybody benefits. Remember that only 35% of UK households in the lowest income decile has access to at least one car, whereas this figure is 90% or higher for the richest four deciles⁶.

As it stands, the plan does little to improve the quality of life across our communities with its focus on large road infrastructure, locking the country into a car-based and (certainly in the short to medium term) carbon intensive future. A smarter focus on smaller locally led projects would be more likely to deliver a low carbon future, healthier communities, and stimulate growth by invigorating local economies.

Main author: Tom van Vuren, Policy Director at the Transport Planning Society. The Transport Planning Society (TPS) is the professional association for Transport Planners in the UK and Republic of Ireland. We represent 1,600 individual members and 38 businesses in the profession.

---

1 Michael Iacano and David Levinson. (2015) Mutual causality in road network growth and economic development. Transport Policy [https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/180063/StatePanel.pdf?sequence=1&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email]
2 Besime Fekri Ziberi. (2021) The econometric approach of the impact of public investment in the road infrastructure in the economic growth of Kosovo. Management dynamics in the knowledge economy. [http://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/6040/1/1765435188_0.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email]
3 Welsh Government. (2022) Welsh Transport Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG) 2022 Consultation draft. Welsh Government. [https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2022-08/welsh-transport-appraisal-guidance-weltag-2022_0.pdf]
4 Department for Transport. (2018) Latest Evidence on Induced Travel Demand: An Evidence Review. Department for Transport [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/induced-travel-demand-an-evidence-review]
5 Scottish Government. (2022) 20% car kilometre reduction route map. Scottish Government. [https://consult.gov.scot/transport-scotland/car-kilometre-reduction-route-map/#:~:text=Overview,almost%2040%25%20of%20transport%20emissions]
6 ONS. (2019) Percentage of households with cars by income group, tenure and household composition: Table A47. ONS. [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/datasets/percentageofhouseholdswithcarsbyincomegrouptenureandhouseholdcompositionuktablea47]

Download: TPS’ review of the Chancellor’s Growth Plan 2022

Transport Planning Society response

About the Transport Planning Society

The Transport Planning Society (TPS) is the only professional body focusing entirely on Transport Planning in the UK. With almost 1500 members, we aim to facilitate, develop and promote best practice in transport planning and provide a focus for dialogue between all those engaged in it, whatever their background or other professional affiliation.

Download: Great British Railways Whole Industry Strategic Plan: Call for evidence

Transport Planning Society response

About the Transport Planning Society

The Transport Planning Society (TPS) is the only professional body focusing entirely on transport planning in the UK. The aim of the Society is to raise the profile of transport planning and chart a course for the profession.

Introduction

The Transport Planning Society welcomes the release of this update to Circular 02/2013 and the opportunity to respond through the consultation. Overall, we are pleased with the tone and direction of this document and recommend its publication as soon as is possible. Our responses are limited to questions 1 to 4 only.

Link to the full consultation document for reference.

Question 1 – Introduction

This section updates the introductory paragraphs of C02/2013 by setting out the role of National Highways (NH) and the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and how the Circular should be applied, as informed by the wording in NH’s Licence and Road Investment Strategy 2. It also sets out that the SRN plays a vital role in growing the economy, levelling up the country and strengthening the Union.

For more information, please refer to section 3.2 of the consultation.

Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the introduction section?

The update clearly puts the onus on local authorities and developers to locate and design new developments that are or can be made sustainable (sections 12 and 13) and we strongly agree.

Question 2 – New connections and capacity enhancements

The revised text reflects changes to the planning system since the Circular’s publication, the publication of National Highways’ Licence, and makes a small number of other minor changes.

For more information, please refer to section 3.3 of the consultation

Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the new connections and capacity enhancements section?

Various other sections repeat the position that National Highways has taken, that it needs to be satisfied that all reasonable options have been exhausted before considering new connections to the SRN (section 19), and we agree.

Question 3 – Engagement with plan making

The revised text reflects changes to the planning system since the circular’s publication, the national planning policy framework (NPPF) and planning practice guidance (PPG), and makes a small number of other minor changes

For more information, please refer to section 3.4 of the consultation

Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the engagement with plan-making section?

The Society agrees that plan-making must not compromise the SRN’s prime function to enable the long-distance movement of people and goods (section 29), and that local plans and spatial development strategies explore all reasonable options to reduce reliance on the SRN (section 32). The Transport Planning Society urges National Highways to fulfil this position conscientiously. We are encouraged that the proposed update to the Circular states (section 37) that planned improvements to the SRN must include the development of safe and integrated networks for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders where appropriate.

Question 4 – Engagement with planning decision making

The revised text reflects changes to the planning system since the Circular’s publication, the statutory requirements, updates general principles to prioritise sustainable transport opportunities, and makes a small number of other minor changes

For more information, please refer to section 3.5 of the consultation.

Do you agree or disagree with the changes proposed in the engagement with decision-taking section?

National Highways should actively contribute to the Government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan’s principles. An example is where the company should take an active role in ensuring that new developments should give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements and facilitate access to high-quality public transport; and that the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility are appropriately addressed in relation to all modes of transport (section 43).

We are encouraged that the proposed update to the Circular states that due consideration should be given to home and street layouts, broadband infrastructure, safe and secure cycle parking, and access to local amenities and open space in support of these aims (section 44). Again, we encourage National Highways to use its powers positively, not just from a SRN perspective, but also reflecting its responsibility to contribute to the government’s wider economic, social, and environmental objectives, in particular the enabling of sustainable economic growth.

For further information, please contact Tom van Vuren, Policy Director, tom.vanvuren@veitchlister.com or Alex Bennett, alex@jfgcomms.co.uk 

Download: Strategic Road Network and the delivery of sustainable development (circular 02/03): TPS consultation response

Transport Planning Society response

About the Transport Planning Society

The Transport Planning Society (TPS) is the only professional body focusing entirely on transport planning in the UK.  The aim of the Society is to raise the profile of transport planning and chart a course for the profession.

Introduction

The skills shortage in the transport sector is a well-documented phenomenon which came to a head last year with the HGV driver crisis¹. The crisis was a symptom of a larger problem where the transport sector struggles to attract, retain and nurture a diverse range of talent.²

We are pleased that the Department for Transport (DfT) realises this and is looking to address the issue in the form of this consultation. The five pillars which the DfT suggest to structure the consultation are sensible and extensive, and with additional stakeholder support should allow for the government to develop a comprehensive strategy.

In replying to the consultation, we wanted to get the views of our stakeholder organisations to form a response which best represented the ideas and thoughts of as many transport planners as possible. As the sole professional body focusing on transport planning in the UK, we believe we have an important and valuable voice to add to this discussion. The responses to the five questions below are an amalgamation of the TPS’ stakeholders’ views, building on the views expressed by our members and Board of Directors.

1. In your view, what skills does the transport sector need in the future?

Green skills

The need to transition to net zero presents a challenge to the industry as we must make certain we have the necessary expertise and skills to meet our climate targets. Sustainability in the transport sector (and arguably other industries) is currently predominately held within policy teams who discuss net zero or sustainability targets and how to achieve them. This is an important first step towards net zero, but as the climate crises becomes more urgent, the industry must have a broader base of experts either within the industry itself, or externally working in close collaboration, to implement this theory and policy into practice.

Firstly, transport planners need to have an understanding of how their schemes can impact climate change positively or negatively. There also needs to be greater understanding of how to model and monitor for these impacts. This is needed in a high-level sense by transport planners, but it is also important that people offering modelling and monitoring services have the understanding and technical expertise to improve techniques and develop new technology to improve our ability to model and monitor a scheme’s carbon impacts accurately.

In particular, the transport industry requires people with engineering or scientific backgrounds to provide more specific advice at all levels of the industry; from planning, design, construction, operation and decommissioning³. This can be achieved by funding comprehensive research and by developing education and training programmes that enable the sector to create roles that move beyond a theoretical understanding of net zero and sustainability policy to practical action. These roles must be competitive compared to other industries and include strong career progression as the demand for these skills is only going to increase.

A specific green skill the transport sector needs is meteorology which has two components: climate and weather⁴. Understanding the interaction between transport and climate is important as we need an accurate picture of the impact transport infrastructure and operations are having on the climate to reach net zero, and in turn of the impact that climate change has and will have on transport infrastructure. This is a high priority as the transport sector is currently the largest emitting sector of greenhouse gas emissions, producing 27% of the UK’s total in 2019⁵.

Measuring whether society achieves net zero emissions is complex as there is currently no standardised or global way of doing so⁶, and it is even more difficult to obtain accurate information on the effects of particular changes within transport-related industries. Ultimately, it is only by working closely with meteorologists, and having their expertise embedded in the industry, that we will be able to see how changes we make in the transport industry affect the climate.

Furthermore, with changing weather patterns and the increasing urgency of avoiding climate catastrophe it’s key we also study the changing climate to guarantee the resilience of our transport networks⁷. This requires working with meteorologists to assess weather patterns and the occurrence and probability of extreme weather events. That way we can adapt and maintain our transport networks accordingly. Implementing meteorology as a skill within the transport sector can be done through funding studies and research, collaborating across industries, or by creating new meteorology jobs in the sector and encouraging their take-up.

In addition, there will need to be a process of transitioning the skills people obtain in more carbon heavy transport-related jobs, to their net-zero carbon equivalents. For example, mechanics who work with internal combustion engine vehicles would need to gain new skills to work with electric vehicles, but still have a lot of useful transferable knowledge that shouldn’t be lost. If the government supported retraining programmes and transition courses, it would support the green transition we need from a skills perspective, but also ensure people aren’t left behind or perceive the necessary green transition to not have a place for them and their skills.

Regardless of whether the industry creates new roles to attract these specific skills set, the transport sector should be working across industries and promoting collaboration to fill any future skills gap. Transport professionals should be working with manufacturers, infrastructure design teams, environmental teams and finance departments, to harness the skills and knowledge of as many relevant complementary sectors as possible. This interdisciplinarity requires support from government and educational institutions.

Data and technology

With the world and industry growing more digital by the day its vital data and technology skills continue to be developed throughout all transport careers, while attracting more people with these skill sets into the profession. Particular areas of concern for our stakeholder organisations (keeping in mind this is somewhat anecdotal, although the government has recognised a data skill gap at a larger scale⁸) were data analytics, data visualisation and mathematical modelling. Understanding and evaluating the data behind transport systems allows for accurate preparation of the future, trend spotting and easier logistical planning. Growing uncertainty about the future, be that because of emerging technologies such as connected autonomous vehicles, or because of climate and geopolitical instability, also means that data analytical skills need to be combined with domain knowledge that extends beyond just transport and its operations.

The insight that data can provide to the industry is crucially important, but what is just as important is effective communication skills to go alongside the analyses. Communications are vital in explaining the issues data presents so that they can be broken down and digested by a wider and ever more critical audience. Effective communications can also change the public perception of the transport industry and the role it plays in many aspects of society, which can increase financial investment and broaden the future pipeline of talent.

HGV Drivers

As well as highly skilled STEM workers, the most pervasive skills gap faced by the industry at the end of 2021 was the shortage of up to 100,000 HGV drivers in the UK⁹. The concern is that the industry needs more training and job opportunities for manual labour, transport operative and driving roles¹⁰. These skills are essential not only to the transport industry, but industry at large in the UK, as we saw last year with the food and petrol shortages. The industry should also provide opportunities for upskilling across the HGV sector, and continued learning and professional development, to make these careers more attractive. Upskilling also creates a flexible workforce which is crucial in times of crisis where people moving across roles with similar skills becomes commonplace.

Future proofing the transport profession

The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted just how underprepared our transport networks were for certain unforeseen circumstances. Whether it’s another pandemic, war or the effects of climate change the past few years have demonstrated the need to plan for the future and plan for the unforeseen. Wrapped into this umbrella term of future proofing are a variety of skills including, but not limited to:

• Forecasting¹¹
• Stakeholder engagement¹²
• Carbon accounting¹³
• Influencing behaviour/behaviour change¹⁴
• Business case/appraisal¹⁵

Each skill will be a necessary component of a transport profession that is equipped for dealing with the uncertainties of the future while also being able to actively plan and encourage sustainable transport options to meet net zero.

2. How, in your view, can current qualification and training routes be made more accessible for those who want to pursue a career in the transport sector?

Early engagement

A fundamental barrier to qualifications and training routes in the transport sector is the industry’s failure to successfully engage with young people, particularly at the point when they are forming their perceptions around careers¹⁶. The transport industry is a large and varied sector, but unfortunately young people often have a narrow view of the roles and careers transport can offer, rather than understanding the breadth of opportunities available to them¹⁷. Better engagement with young people, from the beginning of their GCSE’s up to University, can help break this stereotype and open up the sector to youth by giving them the ability to make informed decisions on possible future careers. Engagement could include actively attending schools and running assemblies, to working closely with career services and providing online transport career advice and webinars for students. We are aware that many of our stakeholder members already invest in supporting university careers event, and (in particular younger) TPS members lecture in high schools and sixth form colleges. Their enthusiasm for their own careers hopefully inspires the next generation.

Engaging with schools and colleges could also help increase the diversity of the transport sector as it would reach children and young people who have no connections to the industry. We should also be targetting specific geographical areas to access underrepresented communities in the industry. In addition, the industry must profile people from a minority background working in the sector which would have a continual positive effect by attracting a more diverse workforce. If potential future employees from underrepresented backgrounds see role models already in the industry it will increase the chances of them pursuing a career in transport¹⁸. Having said that, research is required to understand better what the real obstacles are to diversifying the transport workforce, increasing access to that wider talent pool.

Entry level schemes and qualifications

As well as engaging young people, the sector must continue to attract new starters into the sector by ensuring there are good quality and competitive entry level schemes, such as apprenticeships and graduate schemes, for people of all ages. Such schemes could benefit from engaging with graduates of a wide variety of degrees, as many degree level skills are transferrable to transport planning, even if there is not an obviously direct content link, such as geography. Whilst there is evidence of good practice in the industry, such as HS2’s commitment to 2,000 apprenticeship opportunities during the lifespan of the project¹⁹, the availability of similar apprenticeships for certain roles in the industry such as transport planning are much less well known. One way apprenticeship numbers could be increased is by making them easier to access and pursue for SMEs²⁰.

Current qualifications and training routes should be made more accessible through the introduction of formal qualification processes, not simply voluntary ones, especially for transport planning. A fixed training scheme would raise the status of transport planners which would make the role more attractive, increase diversity in the sector, and provide a transparency of skills which in turn would help highlight their expertise. At the very least we should be increasing the value of voluntary charterships, such as CTPP (Chartered Transport Planning Professional), by recognising them when commissioning project teams for example.

This has been done in Scotland²¹, where those with the CTPP qualification attract a fee bonus, encouraging employers to support their staff in attaining the qualification. Whilst holding these qualifications might not change an individual’s skill, it does ensure increasing industry professionalism, and increases the status of transport planners, bringing their expertise and lengthy training requirements in line with other professions that have benefited for much longer from chartered member status and the existence of a professional body representing their interests.

Flexibility

To encourage a versatile workforce, continued development of skills, and varied careers, there should be more links between different roles across the transport industry to allow for cross sector flexibility. This would help remove barriers for those already in the industry looking for a career change, increasing retention, and could help attract workers from outside the industry.

For example, where there are crossovers, accreditation links between different institutions such as the RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) and RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) would make it easier for workers to move across the industry. This would increase workers’ satisfaction but also retain skills where current accreditation may even lead to losing experience to the industry. If training and chartership were more modular, someone could potentially start out in Transport Planning and change career to become a Chartered Surveyor, if they could acquire skills and progress with their chartership in a way where they could return to these in the future. This would make a return to Transport Planning more appealing and could also encourage Chartered Surveyors to move across to Transport Planning.

3. What, in your view, are effective ways to attract young people and career changers into a career in the transport sector?

Transport’s image problem

The transport industry has an image problem which causes young people, and particularly women, to disregard it as an attractive career. A white paper conducted by the Women in Transport All Party Parliamentary group found that 70% of women believed the transport industry to have an image problem. There are several ways you can solve this problem²², many of which are addressed later on in the white paper²³. They can predominantly be categorised as:

1. Introducing policies which help improve employee wellbeing:
   1. Mentoring programmes and peer support
   2. Staff support networks (internal and external) perhaps for specific minorities
   3. Flexible and hybrid working practices
   4. Mental health training for managers
   5. Regular one to one meetings
2. A government and industry led communications campaign to celebrate, promote and raise awareness of the transport profession

The younger generation of employees are much keener for their employers to focus on mental health and employee wellbeing when compared to previous generations²⁴. Studies have found that up to 70% of millennials and Generation Z now believe mental health to be the greatest challenge their generation faces²⁵. While traditional workplace problems are still equally as important, such as wages and job security, as these factors ultimately have their toll on mental health, the younger workforce are more and more concerned with employers having the right support mechanisms and policies in place. The same survey found that 64% of young workers now consider flexible working important when applying for a job²⁶. To attract young people into organisations and encourage retention and progression, the industry needs to cultivate an inclusive and supportive workplace culture that has accessible routes in for all. Many careers in the transport industry, including transport planning are well suited to flexible working, so this could be easily achieved.

The second point revolves around how we tell the story of the transport profession to generate excitement in potential employees. These aren’t always the natural skills that technical leaders and decision makers in the industry possess, so it will require external support from the government and from specialist consultancies. This is something we as a society do for the Transport Planning profession with our Transport Planning Day campaign²⁷. There are many other campaigns to draw on other professions, but also linked to transport-related themes such as World Bicycle Day or World Car Free Day²⁸.

Raising awareness

A part of this image problem is the lack of awareness young people have of the types of career transport can offer. Raising awareness of the industry will require an effort to target the people who are providing the younger generations with more and more of their information which is increasingly becoming social media influencers²⁹. These influencers (except a few who we cover later on) tend not to talk about transport in the same way they do with sectors like AI or VR etc³⁰. There are good examples of industries and companies making use of influencers to raise awareness amongst youth which can be drawn on, the most obvious of which being the fashion industry.³¹

A strong draw which transport has to offer is the diverse range of opportunities and countless number of exiting projects which potential employees can be involved in, whether at a local or national level. Communication campaigns to raise awareness and address the image problem should utilise this. This could be through VR tours of current sites, experimental videos using drone technology or one on one interviews with young and diverse employees already working on the project etc.³²

Another way to adapt the image of a career in transport and raise awareness for young people is to emphasise the role transport can play in combatting climate change, improving mental / physical health and creating a fairer society. The social, environmental and economic benefits of a good transport network go much beyond simply getting people from A to B. For a generation of workers who care increasingly more about climate change, social and economic justice and mental health³³, the story of transport not for transport’s sake but to improve the ills of a society is a potential way to encourage future talent.

Incentives

Any effort to attract a diverse, young workforce should be able to show some tangible incentives to choosing a career in transport. Some ideas used in other industries include:

• Financial bonuses for starting an apprenticeship scheme
• Financial bonuses from completing the scheme
• Clear career path shown from employers with flexibility and personalisation depending on the employee
• Graduate jobs which offer the ability for further study
• Bespoke mentoring programmes for all entry level jobs
• The ability to:
  
  • Shape and improve the public realm, cities and rural areas
    Have a beneficial impact on physical and mental health, equality and sustainability through even a single project or policy
  • Tackle climate change and environmental degradation
  • Connect communities

There are numerous employers in the transport planning profession that have started to implement programmes with incentives like these, for example Integrated Transport Planning’s new SUNRISE graduate scheme³⁴.

Gaming & different communication channels

As mentioned, the way younger generations now consume media and get their information is very different to what is has been in the past, and for the current cohort of decision-makers. Gaming has exploded as the digital revolution has continued with more children (and adults) now gaming than ever before³⁵. The opportunities to highlight what the transport profession has to offer through the gaming world are endless. Games like Minecraft and Sim City are perfect to attract pre-teens while the Grand Theft Auto Online Content Creator mode would be more suited for teenagers and young adults.

These sandbox games allow users the freedom to experiment and naturally understand the excitement of transport planning, and engineering more generally, without it being forced upon them³⁶. It also teaches users a number of skills like problem solving, creativity and reasoning which can be directly applied to STEM careers later in life. With a joint effort between the transport industry and game developers there is real potential to create something which could inspire the next generation of gamers to consider a career in transport. There is even the possibility to carve roles that join the two, such as using gaming software or virtual reality in transport design, engagement and consultation.

Another hugely popular communications channel which should be utilised by industry is TikTok. Francis Bourgeois, a young trainspotter and train enthusiast, has 2.4 million followers on TikTok³⁷ and 1.6 million followers on Instagram. His videos have gone viral on social media for his genuine and authentic love for trains which has resonated with millions of young people. Francis, and other less known influencers, with the right nurturing, could be the spearhead of a recruitment campaign which highlights how passionate some young people can be for transport, and that this passion can be more than just a hobby.

Early-stage education

As discussed in question 2 a successful strategy to engage and inspire the next generation of talent should attempt engage with the younger generation as early as possible³⁸. The various avenues of STEM, which includes transport, should be a focus from early-stage education up to GCSE’s. One part of this is the technical side of the profession which will be explored in science and maths classes however more can be done to ensure that transport problems are part of the STEM curriculum for class. But there is also the social value of transport which must be discussed as part of a human geography curriculum or the rich history behind our transport systems which could be a component of history classes. If pupils understand the benefits of and the history associated with our transport network, we should expect those pupils to take an interest in transport and potentially see it as a viable career.

To get transport onto the school curriculum in this way, from a place where it is virtually invisible, there needs to be a concerted effort to lobby governments from the industry, education establishments and trade bodies to convince them of the importance and necessity to make these changes.

When targeting children and young adults at school special consideration must be given to not discourage girls from pursuing a career in transport. The evidence which shows girls being deterred from careers in STEM is indubitable,³⁹ and transport is no exception to this. We’ve already established that the industry has an image problem. Institutions and teachers need to understand the reasons as to why girls may be put off STEM, such as a lack of role models and faulty conceptions of what futures careers may look like, and address these as early as possible.⁴⁰

4. What, in your view, are the barriers to further increasing diversity, inclusion and social mobility in the transport sector?

Lack of diversity at senior levels

Few women work in the transport industry, but even fewer women rise to the top. An International Transport Workers Federation report found that women occupy less then 20% of managerial positions across global transport supply chains. Finding data for ethnic diversity within the industry is more difficult but the picture is much the same as the gender makeup.⁴²

The lack of diversity at senior levels means that for non-white males that are looking into the industry or those that have just entered it, there are very few role models from similar backgrounds to look up to and aspire to. Offering a clear path for career progression is key to attracting a younger workforce. If employees are unable to see anyone like them in leadership roles, they will inevitably imagine substantial barriers for them to eventually get to those positions. This is not only the case for board rooms and leadership teams, but also for relevant for events and talks. We must be able to see and hear underrepresented voices resonating all throughout the transport industry.

Hiring and promoting women and ethnic minorities into managerial roles will also increase the likelihood that inclusive internal policies will be introduced, as well as more inclusive transport schemes. This should cultivate and support the pipeline of talent of future leaders from underrepresented groups⁴³. Those from these demographic groups understand the struggle and extra barriers they have had to face, so they are best placed to introduce company practices which look to alleviate and eradicate these barriers.

Challenging perceptions in the industry

We have established that the industry is perceived as male and pale and that this can put those who don’t fit this description off from seeing it as an attractive place to work. Another perception that the industry struggles with is its ageing workforce. A disproportionate number of UK transport workers are aged between 45-54, with a relatively small percentage aged below 30⁴⁴.

The demographic makeup of the industry leads to many of the perceptions which were found in Women in Transport’s White Paper. For example, 93% of respondents (women) agreed it had a macho culture, only 19% thought women and men were treated fairly and 35% found it difficult to progress their careers. These perceptions are one of the largest barriers the industry face in attracting a diverse and inclusive workforce and they must be challenged wherever possible (see question 3 for how to do this).

5. How, in your view, can barriers to diversity, inclusion and social mobility in the transport sector be reduced?

Most of our answers to question 3 can also be applied here, but we develop one further point below.

Attracting older employees

Despite our answer to question four, it is still important that the transport sector attracts older employees as the skills shortage cannot ignore this talent pool. Many in the later stages of life may lack the qualifications which are required for entry jobs today so the focus should be on transferable skills and experiences. Interview and induction processes must have the structures in place to allow for these kinds of candidates to be successful and flourish.

Comprehensive policies and support for work returners will be key in attracting older candidates, both those with directly applicable qualifications and without. Some policies which will help include:

• Adequate parental leave
• Long-term sick leave
• Options for carers
• Job sharing programmes

This isn’t a comprehensive list. It’s also worth noticing that policies like these aren’t only attractive to older employees but also the younger ones who are more concerned with employee wellbeing⁴⁵.

Conclusion

To tackle the skills shortage and create a transport workforce that is fit for the future we need continued collaboration between industry and government as well as wider stakeholders, such as educational establishments. This consultation is a welcome first step but must be followed by action. Two-way stakeholder engagement is necessary to develop a thorough strategy that is wider than just the transport sector itself. We hope our thoughts will help with this and will be happy to provide further information if necessary.

We have outlined below five key recommendations for developing skills and careers across the transport industry which encapsulate the main points made throughout our response.

Key recommendations

• Focus on green & technological skills
• Engage early in the education system
• Challenge the industry’s image problem
• Always keep EDI at the top of the agenda
• Establish and create an inclusive work culture
• Formalise chartership / any qualification process

Download: TPS – Transport Labour Market and skills consultation response

---

1 Jones D. (2021) Where has the talent gone? A breakdown of the UK’s skills shortage in transport and logistics professions. Cogito [https://cogitotalent.com/uks-skills-shortage-in-transport-and-logistics-professions/]
2 Bekiaris E., Laiou A., Loukea M., Plati C., Pomoni M., Yannis G. (2020) Future trends in transport workforce based on demographic, behavioural, cultural and socioeconomic factors. Transport Research Procedia.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146520306566/pdf?md5=56fe8cdbd71be785b79f876f6db90254&pid=1-s2.0-S2352146520306566-main.pdf]
3 Makungo R., Musyoki A., Odiyo O J. (2021) Skills and Knowledge Transfer for Transitioning into the Green Economy. Green Economy in the Transport Sector. [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-86178-0_6]
4 National Geographic Society (2022) Meteorology. National Geographic Society.
[https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/meteorology/]
5 Department for Transport. (2021) Transport and Environment Statistics
2021 Annual report. Department for Transport. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984685/transport-and-environment-statistics-2021.pdf]
6 Office of National Statistics. (2019) Net zero and the different official measures of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. Office of National Statistics. [https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/netzeroandthedifferentofficialmeasuresoftheuksgreenhousegasemissions/2019-07-24]
7 Deng S., Dou Y., Ji T., Liao H., Yao Y., Yu S., Zhu Y. (2022) The Impact of Climate Change on Urban Transportation Resilience to Compound Extreme Events. Sustainability.
[https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3880/pdf]
8 Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2021) Quantifying the UK Data Skill Gap – Summary version. Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/quantifying-the-uk-data-skills-gap/quantifying-the-uk-data-skills-gap]
9 Royal Haulage Association (2021) A Report on the Driver Shortage. Royal Haulage Association.
[https://www.rha.uk.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ICI0C-FWmVo%3D&portalid=0&timestamp=1627564639720]
10 Logistics UK (2021) Survey shows skills shortages are growing across the logistics industry. Logistics UK. [https://logistics.org.uk/media/press-releases/2021/october/survey-shows-skills-shortages-are-growing-across-t]
11 Tozer D. (2021) Planning for future transport demand. UK Research and Innovation. [https://www.ukri.org/blog/planning-for-future-transport-demand/]
12 Celik T., Erkul M., Yitmen I. (2019) Dynamics of stakeholder engagement in mega transport infrastructure projects. International Journal of Managing Project in Business. [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2018-0175/full/html]
13 Greenhouse Gas Protocol. (2013) Technical Guidance for Evaluating Scope 4 emissions – Chapter 4. Greenhouse Gas Protocol. [https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards_supporting/Chapter4.pdf
14 European Commission. (2019) Promoting Mobility Behaviour Change. European Commission. [https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/promoting_behaviour_change.pdf]
15 Edkins A., McArthur J., Zerjav V. (2021) The multiplicity of value in the front-end of projects: The case of London transportation infrastructure. International Journal of Project Management.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786321000296]
16 Magnuson C., Starr M. (2000) How Early Is Too Early to Begin Life Career Planning? The Importance of the Elementary School Years. Journal of Career Development.
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/089484530002700203]
17 Department for Transport (2021) Aviation and maritime careers: young people’s perceptions. Department for Transport. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/aviation-and-maritime-careers-young-peoples-perceptions]
18 Karunanayake D., Nauta. (2011) The Relationship Between Race and Students’ Identified Career Role Models and Perceived Role Model Influence. The Career Development Quarterly. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2004.tb00644.x]
19 HS2. (2022) HS2 undergo huge recruitment drive to mark National Apprenticeship Week. Global Railway Review.
[https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/131698/hs2-major-recruitment-national-apprenticeship-week/#:~:text=HS2%20has%20committed%20to%20creating,placed%20to%20smash%20its%20target]
20 Total People (2022). Apprenticeship funding for SMEs. Total People.
[https://www.totalpeople.co.uk/apprenticeships-for-employers/sme-solutions/#:~:text=Apprenticeship%20funding%20for%20SMEs&text=If%20you%20are%20a%20business,funding%20and%20co%2Dinvestment%20processes]
21 Transport Scotland (2021) Graduate Training Scheme. Transport Scotland. [https://www.transport.gov.scot/careers/graduate-training-scheme/]
22 Field J., Haddad H., (2021) Gender Perceptions and Experiences Working In Transport. Women in Transport.
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59773e3edb29d6ba1e61186d/t/60de31d509a3c07993b4c263/1625174489655/WIT_APPG_REPORT_07.pdf]
23 Ibid.,
24 Crush P. (2021) Mental health challenge for 70% of young employees. Employee benefits. [https://employeebenefits.co.uk/mental-health-challenge-70-young-employees/]
25 Ibid.,
26 Ibid.,
27 Transport Planning Society. (2020) Transport Planning Day 2020. Transport Planning Society. [https://tps.org.uk/transport-planning-day-and-campaign/transport-planning-day-archive/tp-day-2020-announced]
28 Living Streets. (2022) World Car Free Day. Living Streets. [https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/about-us/our-work-in-action/world-car-free-day]
29 Dorfler F., Li C., Mei W., Pagan N. (2021) A meritocratic network formation model for the rise of social media influencers. Nature communications. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27089-8]
30 Viral Nation. (2021) Why Influencers Are The Future of VR and AR Marketing. Viral Nation. [https://www.viralnation.com/blog/why-influencers-are-the-future-of-vr-and-ar-marketing/]
31 Fear-Smith N. (2021) How are Fashion Brands Utilising Social Media Influencers? Talking Influence.
[https://talkinginfluence.com/2021/01/15/how-are-fashion-brands-utilising-social-media-influencers/]
32 Tesla (2022) Flying Through Giga Berlin. Youtube. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-4yOx1CnXE
33 Babington – Ashaye Y. (2016) What do young people care about? We asked 26,000 of them. World Economic Forum. [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/what-do-young-people-care-about-we-asked-26-000-of-them/]
34 International Transport Project. (2022) ITP Graduate opportunities for 2022. International Transport Project.
[https://tps.org.uk/opportunities/vacancies/vacancy-details?id=374]
35 Finances Online. (2022) Number of Gamers Worldwide 2022/2023: Demographics, Statistics, and Predictions. Finances Online. [https://financesonline.com/number-of-gamers-worldwide/]
36 Hoade O. (2020) Using Minecraft to create the next generation of engineers. Polestar.
[https://insights.polestarcf.com/post/102g8dv/using-minecraft-to-create-the-next-generation-of-engineers]
37 Francis Bourgeois (2022) TikTok [https://www.tiktok.com/@francis.bourgeois?lang=en]
38 Magnuson S., Starr M. (2000) How Early Is Too Early to Begin Life Career Planning? The Importance of the Elementary School Years. [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089484530002700203]
39 AAUW (2022) The STEM Gap: Women and Girls in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. AAUW. [https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/the-stem-gap/]
40 Choney S. (2018) Why do girls lose interest in STEM? New research has some answers — and what we can do about it. Microsoft. [https://news.microsoft.com/features/why-do-girls-lose-interest-in-stem-new-research-has-some-answers-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/]
41 Acker A., Ng W. (2020) The Gender Dimension of the
Transport Workforce. International Transport Forum. [https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/gender-dimension-transport-workforce.pdf]
42 Laker L. (2020) Diversity in transport needs to accelerate. Smart Transport.
[https://www.smarttransport.org.uk/insight-and-policy/latest-insight-and-policy/diversity-in-transport-needs-to-accelerate]
43 Desai K. (2022) Four ways to accelerate the diversity agenda. Passenger Transport.
[http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2022/03/four-ways-to-accelerate-diversity/]
44 CIPD. (2019) Ageing gracefully: The opportunities of
An older workforce. CIPD. [https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/megatrends-ageing-gracefully-the-opportunities-of-an-older-workforce-1_tcm18-64897.pdf]
45 Orlando C. (2021) Mental health among young employees: let’s start doing more to improve workplace practices. Institute for Employment Studies. [https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/news/mental-health-among-young-employees-let%E2%80%99s-start-doing-more-improve-workplace-practices#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20Youth%20Voice,and%2053.3%20per%20cent%20experienced]

Download: TPS Response: Consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework and National Model Design Code

The Transport Planning Society is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on both the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Model Design Code (NMDC)…

Transport Planning Society response

Introduction

In “Planning ahead for the Strategic Road Network”, published late 2021, the Government sets out its plans to develop the third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3), covering the period from 2025 to 2030¹. In 2023, the Department for Transport (DfT) will publish a Draft RIS setting out its intentions for RIS3, which is preceded by a research phase.

The aim of the research phase is finding out:

a) What people think should be the main objectives for National Highways and the SRN, both for RIS3 and beyond

b) Which locations on the SRN are most in need of improvement

c) The opportunities to unlock wider benefits from investment in the SRN

d) If there should be any changes in the roads that make up the SRN

This document is the response of the Transport Planning Society (TPS) to the research phase, focused on issues a) and c). We will share our responses with the key stakeholders identified in the reports as active in the research phase: National Highways, the Office of Rail and Road, and Transport Focus.

The Transport Planning Society is the only professional body focusing entirely on Transport Planning in the UK². With almost 1500 members, we aim to facilitate, develop and promote best practice in transport planning and provide a focus for dialogue between all those engaged in it, whatever their background or other professional affiliation.

What should be the main objectives for National Highways and the SRN

We are encouraged by the opening statement in the document that confirms that the highway network supports all modes of travel, and not just mechanised modes, or private vehicles. This consideration must be extended across purposes of trips made using the network. Utility trips (commuting and work journeys) on the SRN have historically dominated cost-benefit analyses of the value derived from investment. It is pleasing to see that leisure trips will also be taken into consideration with regards to network performance. This is pertinent as almost half of transport professionals expect the number of leisure and social trips to increase in the next five to ten years compared to pre-Covid levels³.

The government should be cognisant of the Transport Focus research that which highlights that users mostly value improved quality of road surfaces, safer design and upkeep of roads⁴. RIS3 should not just be about expansion of the SRN – greater value could be achieved by maintaining and improving the existing road assets, also considering the climate change threat and the responsibility to ensure resilience of the strategic road network in the face of climate events. Resilience of digital infrastructure should also be part of this.

TPS welcomes the statement that RIS3 could also intervene to improve other transport networks which can support different ways of making local journeys off the SRN. We recommend the work done by (then) Highways England in the M25 South West Quadrant Strategic Study, concluding:

“This study recommends that the focus of future work should not be on widening the existing (M25) road. Instead, attention should be given to how to reduce pressures and provide parallel capacity to relieve the motorway network. This should work first to find alternatives to travel, or to move traffic to more sustainable modes. But the volume of travel means that road enhancements are also likely to be needed”.⁵

Switching existing driven trips to another mode, including car passenger (increased car occupancy is also Government policy) can be supported by land use and planning interventions. If a car trip changes from a distant destination poorly served by public transport (PT) to a destination within walking or cycling distance (or with good PT links) it not only reduces car mileage, but it also brings new modes into play – both effects reducing the need to invest in further SRN expansion.

Accessibility mapping across all modes is a key tool to analyse this opportunity across the country. It requires different, better integrated policies, (linked to Local Transport and Development Plans) instead of those which simply try to make individual modes more attractive. Working in closer co-operation with local transport and planning authorities could mean a break from capacity increases to demand management, mode and destination switching, on grounds of congestion and climate considerations that are better served that way.

Throughout the report there is too strong a focus on alternative fuels (biofuels, electricity and hydrogen) rather than increasing modal shift. For the government and National Highways to reach their respective net zero targets by 2050, a significant reduction in total car mileage is required (it has been estimated that a 20% to 30% reduction is needed by 2030, relative to 2019 levels)⁶, with the additional potential benefit of also freeing up road-space to other users.

In appraisal of the RIS3 programme, we recommend that a separate objective related solely to carbon should be considered by the DfT, rather than the topic being merged (as it is currently) with the ‘Improved Environmental Outcomes’ objective. As a minimum, the RIS3 appraisal process should ensure that every individual scheme and the overall programme is tested against the government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan objectives⁷.

The appraisal process must reflect the now well-recognised uncertainty around future travel demand growth, be that because of a continuation of the trends emerging from Covid 19 lockdowns, or as exemplified by the two climate change scenarios presented by Prof Phil Goodwin⁸, rather than the current DfT traffic growth forecasts. The latest DfT forecasts are now more than 3 years old, and reflect pre-pandemic assumptions about the economy and associated future travel demand. We disagree with the statement that changes in the forecast of future travel demand⁹ “are highly unlikely to overturn the importance of the SRN”. The modelling of alternative scenarios needs to prove that, and all such scenarios must reflect unintended consequences, such as induced demand occurring where congestion is (temporarily) resolved.

Any assessment of the RIS3 programme and any of its component schemes must build on the Uncertainty Toolkit and Common Analytical Scenarios developed by the Department itself¹⁰, and learn from similar scenario development activities by, for example, Transport Scotland and Transport for the North^{11 12}.

By incentivising driving, through lowering the driver’s time and hence generalised cost, any sustainability package aimed at decarbonisation will have to first make up for this disincentive – at least to the predicted car travel time value. The logical way to achieve this is by reallocating road space at the same time but that also reduces benefits as they are currently calculated. RIS3 needs to consider if the current approach to appraisal needs overhauling, to overcome this conundrum. Currently, the underlying justification for SRN schemes which influence urban/suburban traffic is the very thing which undermines other Government policy. Strategic schemes do interact with urban and suburban areas and policies: it’s where most of the people and cars are located.

The government’s own Transport Decarbonisation Plan raises increasing car occupancy and encouraging public transport use as two measures that can immediately cut transport’s carbon emissions. RIS3 needs to embrace this point and facilitate where possible. The government should investigate, and possibly trial the use of High Occupancy Toll lanes to support increasing car occupancy and provide complementary funding to enhance public transport provision. Recent press suggestions that the Bus Back Better funds have been halved from £3Bn to £1.4Bn are worrying.¹³

The Society welcomes the statement that “Action on the SRN will support the use of a decarbonised vehicle fleet and make active travel and public transport easier and more attractive to use”, and would seek assurances that these actions are embedded in the designs, monitored and evaluated.

It is positive to see that the SRN is one of the safest networks in the world and that safety is, and will continue to be, the Department’s top priority in RIS3. Despite this, an omission from this particular objective, and the publication as a whole, is any reference to Smart Motorways. A government statement on delaying the further the rollout of was recently published¹⁴, and RIS3 should reflect not only the stated intention to halt the construction of new Smart Motorways, but also assess if the completion of the 100 or so miles of Smart Motorways under construction should be paused until a full 5 years’ worth of safety data is available.

The Society disagrees with the intention in the report, that enhancement schemes that had funding approved in an earlier RIS, and where construction has not concluded by March 2025, will continue to be funded in RIS3. We are of the opinion that all schemes should be reassessed, in line with the proposed review of National Policy Statement for National Networks.

Given the increase in cycle usage, and the reported 40% increase in cyclist deaths in 2020, we urge the government to ensure that all RIS3 projects have measures in place to improve cyclist safety.¹⁵

In terms of catering for freight, more is possible to optimise road haulage (e.g. through consolidation). Rather than simply predicting and providing for ongoing growth; the government can play a role in this. The SRN does not need to be the only network catering for the movement of goods, or investment in RIS3 be the only way to address the congestion costs experienced by road freight. Better use can be made of rail freight alternatives, not just for access to global markets but as a realistic mode that deserves consideration for investment. A more effective rail freight offering may be preferable over expansion of the strategic road network in RIS3. The involvement of the Office of Rail and Road is a positive step towards this.

Meaningful engagement with bus and other mass transit operators should also occur ahead of the RIS3 final publication. We recommend that RIS3 ensures it takes note of, and aligns with, the National Infrastructure Commission’s Second National Infrastructure Assessment: Baseline Report, recently published.¹⁶

The opportunities to unlock wider benefits from investment in the SRN

We are encouraged that according to the report, SRN investment has also unlocked 160 new and improved cycleways and footpaths, and urge the government to look for greater opportunity to seek wider benefits for non-motorised travellers from the significant investment in RIS3. Ideally, we would like to see a percentage of the overall spend committed to active mode improvements; and a mandate that every RIS scheme has an explicit walking and cycling component, scrutinised by Active Travel England. The improvement of roads should be for all rather than private car / freight users alone.

The SRN interacts, inevitably, with roads lower down the hierarchy, where many of the trips visible on and benefiting from investment in the SRN, will originate. Unlocking benefits needs to recognise this interplay, for at least the following three reasons:

• Strategic roads, with a movement rather than place function, can support the creation and success of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and other place-making initiatives
• However, unlocking congestion on the strategic road network, making car-based travel faster and easier, can induce further car-based demand, negating some of the intended local road benefits, and even increase traffic in mainly residential streets as end destinations of such trips
• And in any case, investment in the SRN also needs to reflect the needs of those who live and work along the strategic road network, and who are already concerned about the redistribution of road traffic towards this network, and its externalities to their environment

The designated funds for dealing with severance and noise impacts have been well received and are a valuable potential funding source for local communities to make improvements to reduce negative impacts of road schemes on their quality of life. In RIS3, this funding pot should be increased, and National Highways should be more proactive in exploring options for using this funding and reduce the administration necessary for local highway authorities to access this. This could include earmarked allocations against local authorities with clear eligibility criteria and a ‘use it or lose it’ approach – perhaps linked to schemes identified in a new round of LTPs. It is essential that these LTPs and RIS3 are aligned.

The SRN’s creation of jobs is welcomed but a commitment (ideally in the form of a measurable target) to the creation of long-term employment opportunities for those from typically underrepresented groups should be provided in RIS3. This action would reduce employment gaps in road and would assist both the government’s commitment to ‘build back better’ and to ‘level up’.¹⁷

In a similar vein, the trial and rollout of new digital technologies is expected to improve safety and create efficiencies on the SRN. However, they must not exclude nor prohibit users that cannot adopt them. The involvement of Transport Focus is encouraging to see, but the Department and its partners must consider an SRN technology strategy for the network, with a heavy focus on engagement and consultation with users. Technology can also have unintended negative consequences – for example the reported increase in usage of C- and unclassified roads over the past ten years, most likely encouraged by navigational systems now commonly available in cars and on smart phones.¹⁸

Summary

The Transport Planning Society recognises the opportunity that RIS3 offers to improve travel conditions not just for private car and freight traffic, but across all modes of travel that make use of roads. The road investment strategy should recognise the interplay between levels of hierarchy and between travel modes, ensuring that all benefit.

In a previous study on the M25 it was found by National Highways itself that investments off the strategic road network may deliver the intended outcomes easier and cheaper than by expanding the SRN. It would be refreshing to see the funds available in RIS3 for such alternative interventions, be that the lower tier network, or other modes, such as active travel for personal trips or rail for freight movement. Climate resilience and maintenance of existing assets should be prioritised.

In any case, the strategy needs to align with strategies at the local level (such as emerging Local Transport Plans) and other national policies, such as decarbonisation. Reducing the need to travel, rather than providing for predicted traffic growth is one way of doing so.

The latest DfT Road Traffic Forecasts are now more than 3 years old, and uncertainty should be at the heart of road investment related decision-making. TPS believes that this implies a review of all schemes approved in the previous RIS.

Contact

Corresponding author: Tom van Vuren, Director of Policy (tom.van.vuren@veitchlister.com). Contributions by Rose Yorke Barber, Keith Buchan, Mark Frost, Victoria Heald, Alexis Edwards, Lucy Taussig and Alex Bennett.

Bibliography

1. Department for Transport. (2021) Planning ahead for the Strategic Road Network Developing the third Road Investment Strategy. Department for Transport.
2. Transport Planning Society. (2022) [https://tps.org.uk/].
3. Woodhouse, I., Cowling, E., and Wain, C. (2020) Long-term implications of Covid-19 on transport planning and policy: a perspective from the transport sector. Rees Jeffrey Road Fund.
4. Transport Focus. (2021) Check how road user priorities for improvement vary by type of user and journey. Transport Focus.
5. National Highways. (2017) M25 South West quadrant: strategic study: stage 3 report. Department for Transport.
6. Hopkinson, L., Anable, J., Cairns, S., Goodman, A., Goodwin, P., Hiblin, B., Kirkbride, A., Newson, C., and Sloman, L. (2021) The last chance saloon: we need to cut car mileage by at least 20%. Transport for Quality of Life.
7. Department for Transport. (2021) Decarbonising Transport a Better, Greener Britain. Department for Transport.
8. Anable, J., and Goodwin, P. (2021) We are now facing two alternative futures (plus an untenable one). Local Transport Today.
9. Department for Transport. (2018) Road Traffic Forecasts 2018 Moving Britain Ahead. Department for Transport.
10. Department for Transport. (2021) Uncertainty Toolkit TAG Supplementary Guidance. Department for Transport.
11. Transport Scotland. (2019) Scenario Planning Process Report. Transport Scotland.
12. Transport for the North. (2020) Future Travel Scenarios Adaptive planning to deliver our strategic vision in an uncertain future. Transport for the North.
13. Helm, T. (2022) Boris Johnson’s ‘bus back better’ plan in tatters as Treasury cuts funding by half. The Guardian.
14. National Highways. (2022) Smart motorway rollout to be paused as government responds to Transport Committee report. Department for Transport.
15. Department for Transport. (2022) Reported Road casualties in Great Britain: pedal cycle factsheet, 2020. Department for Transport.
16. National Infrastructure Commission. (2021) Second National Infrastructure Assessment: Baseline Report. National Infrastructure Commission.
17. De Henau, J., and Himmelweit, S. (2020) The gendered employment gains of investing in social vs. physical infrastructure: evidence from simulations across seven OECD countries. The Open University.
18. Reid, C. (2020) ‘Rat-running’ increases on residential UK streets as experts blame satnav apps. The Guardian.

Download: Road Investment Strategy 3: Transport Planning Society’s research response

---

1 Department for Transport. (2021) Planning ahead for the Strategic Road Network Developing the third Road Investment Strategy. Department for Transport. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1045938/planning-ahead-for-the-strategic-road-network-developing-the-third-road-investment-strategy.pdf].
2 Transport Planning Society. (2022) [https://tps.org.uk/].
3 Woodhouse, I., Cowling, E., and Wain, C. (2020) Long-term implications of Covid-19 on transport planning and policy: a perspective from the transport sector. Rees Jeffrey Road Fund. [www.reesjeffreys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FTVG_Group1_Report.pdf].
4 Transport Focus. (2021) Check how road user priorities for improvement vary by type of user and journey. Transport Focus. [https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/publication/check-how-road-user-priorities-for-improvement-vary-by-type-of-user-and-journey/].
5 National Highways. (2017) M25 South West quadrant: strategic study: stage 3 report. Department for Transport. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600047/m25-south-west-quadrant-strategic-study-stage-3.pdf].
6 Hopkinson, L., Anable, J., Cairns, S., Goodman, A., Goodwin, P., Hiblin, B., Kirkbride, A., Newson, C., and Sloman, L. (2021) The last chance saloon: we need to cut car mileage by at least 20%. Transport for Quality of Life. [www.transportforqualityoflife.com].
7 Department for Transport. (2021) Decarbonising Transport a Better, Greener Britain. Department for Transport. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009448/decarbonising-transport-a-better-greener-britain.pdf].
8 Anable, J., and Goodwin, P. (2021) We are now facing two alternative futures (plus an untenable one). Local Transport Today. [https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/evolution/news/69570/we-are-now-facing-two-alternative-futures-plus-an-untenable-one].
9 Department for Transport. (2018) Road Traffic Forecasts 2018 Moving Britain Ahead. Department for Transport. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873929/road-traffic-forecasts-2018-document.pdf].
10 Department for Transport. (2021) Uncertainty Toolkit TAG Supplementary Guidance. Department for Transport. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/983766/tag-uncertainty-toolkit.pdf].
11 Transport Scotland. (2019) Scenario Planning Process Report. Transport Scotland. [https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/45142/scenario-planning-process-report.pdf].
12 Transport for the North. (2020) Future Travel Scenarios Adaptive planning to deliver our
strategic vision in an uncertain future. Transport for the North. [https://transportforthenorth.com/future-travel-scenarios/].
13 Helm, T. (2022) Boris Johnson’s ‘bus back better’ plan in tatters as Treasury cuts funding by half. The Guardian. [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/23/boris-johnsons-bus-back-better-red-wall-levelling-up-treasury-cuts-funding].
14 National Highways. (2022) Smart motorway rollout to be paused as government responds to Transport Committee report. Department for Transport. [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/smart-motorway-rollout-to-be-paused-as-government-responds-to-transport-committee-report].
15 Department for Transport. (2022) Reported Road casualties in Great Britain: pedal cycle factsheet, 2020. Department for Transport. [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020].
16 National Infrastructure Commission. (2021) Second National Infrastructure Assessment: Baseline Report. National Infrastructure Commission. [https://nic.org.uk/studies-reports/national-infrastructure-assessment/baseline-report/].
17 De Henau, J., and Himmelweit, S. (2020) The gendered employment gains of investing in social vs. physical infrastructure: evidence from simulations across seven OECD countries. The Open University. [www.open.ac.uk/ikd/sites/www.open.ac.uk.ikd/files/files/working-papers/DeHenauApril2020v3.pdf].
18 Reid, C. (2020) ‘Rat-running’ increases on residential UK streets as experts blame satnav apps. The Guardian. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/25/rat-running-residential-uk-streets-satnav-apps].

By: Tom van Vuren, Director of Policy
Last updated: February 2022

A pay per mile road-user pricing system could be a fairer and more sustainable source of revenue accounting for the many social and environmental costs of motoring and encouraging more efficient use of vehicles

Road pricing and motor taxation is a topic which Transport Planning Society (TPS) have explored in detail before concluding that the current system needs reviewing.^{1 2}

The current fiscal incentive system for UK transport heavily favours car use which results in lost revenue, but also means we miss out on an opportunity to use price signals to foster modal shift from private motor vehicles to public transport, active travel or other sustainable forms of transport.

The cost of public transport has increased at a significantly faster rate than motoring. Between January 2012 and December 2021, according to the ONS, the cost of motoring had increased 26%, rail fares 30% and bus and coach fares 65%.

Estimates suggest the discontinuation of the fuel duty escalator in 2011 has caused a 5% increase in traffic and an extra five million tonnes of CO2. This is as well as £50 billion lost in potential revenue.³

Motoring has a range of environmental and social externalities that need to be considered to inform any future motoring taxation.

The House of Commons Transport Select Committee report on road pricing

In February 2022 the Commons Transport Select Committee (TSC) released a report on road pricing which concluded that the government should reform road pricing to avoid a £35 billion loss in revenue. This loss is mainly due to fuel duty and vehicle excise duty currently not being levied on electric vehicles.

Political issue

The problem which often arises when discussing road pricing policy, as well as demand management schemes in general, is that they are viewed as being politically unpopular. Historically, the public meet these policies with opposition.^{4 5 6}

More recent data shows a changing picture. A 2021 poll from The Social Market Foundation has found that almost four in 10 people back road pricing to replace fuel duty and other similar taxes.⁷

Solutions

Two things are essential to ensure the success of road pricing policies:

• They must be accompanied by carefully constructed public relations campaigns which engage with the public early and frequently. Campaigns should address any key concerns the public have, explain why road pricing is necessary and stress the many environmental, social and economic benefits of the policy. Stockholm provides an inspiring example, where initial opposition turned into support when the benefits of congestion charging schemes were carefully monitored and presented.⁸
• Reforms to road pricing should be accompanied by improvements to the transport network elsewhere. This would include, for example, safer segregated cycle lanes, simpler, cheaper rail fares or a more frequent bus network. The actual improvements will vary depending on the area, but the important point is that people must see where their money is going, including in the provision of realistic alternatives to their previous car journeys.

We welcome the TSC report and fully support the premise that reforming motor taxation is necessary – and not just for revenue reasons, but particularly for the associated environmental and societal benefits. What these reforms look like in practice needs further discussion and debate. We recommend looking to Singapore⁹, Stockholm¹⁰ and Nottingham¹¹ for inspiration.

Find out more about Transport Policy in the UK: read our State of the Nations 2020 report

---

1 https://tps.org.uk/tps-policy/decarbonising-transport-a-better-greener-britain
2 https://tps.org.uk/tps-policy/the-second-national-infrastructure-assessment-call-for-evidence
3 https://governmentbusiness.co.uk/news/10032020/ending-fuel-duty-freeze-could-treble-nhs-budget
4 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/londoners-oppose-sadiq-khan-congestion-charge-motorists-poll-b924117.html
5 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/dec/12/congestioncharging-transport

6 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/feb/23/politics.environment
7 https://www.smf.co.uk/public-dislike-of-unfair-fuel-duty-opens-the-door-to-road-pricing-think-tank/
8 https://transportportal.se/swopec/cts2014-7.pdf
9 https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/singapore-experience-road-user-charges.pdf
10 https://www.ibm.com/blogs/industries/stockholm-congestion-pricing-iot-analytics-government/
11 https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/funding-financing-inclusive-growth-cities/reviewing-funding-finance-options-available-city-combined-authorities/

Transport Planning Society response

About the Transport Planning Society

The Transport Planning Society (TPS) is the only professional body focusing entirely on transport planning in the UK. The aim of the Society is to raise the profile of transport planning and chart a course for the profession.

Introduction

The Second National Infrastructure Baseline Report was published by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) in November 2021. The report rightly identifies the three major future challenges:

• Reaching net zero
• Climate resilience and the environment
• Supporting levelling up

As a Society we believe that transport infrastructure should feature in all strategic themes, not just contribute to levelling up. The Commission should consider the wider role that transport has to play in helping address all challenges.

In particular, we believe there is another strategic challenge that might be termed “Community Acceptance”. The community rejection of the notion of road pricing in Manchester and Edinburgh 10-15 years ago appears to have shifted to a position of reluctant acceptance as the loss of taxation resulting from increased use of electric vehicles has emerged. Community Acceptance helps shape political response and hence the availability of resources for the initiatives proposed.

There are also cases where the challenge is to choose between Capital or Revenue funded interventions or, indeed, a mixture of the two. The arguments that are adduced for comparison of Capital and Revenue projects in the rail context apply even more to buses and minor streetworks to assist buses. Major road improvements could potentially be avoided by a combination of minor improvements, better traffic and parking management, attractive and well marketed bus services coordinated with some form of road pricing so that motorists pay the full community costs of their journeys.

Turning to the Commission’s challenges, we are surprised that Digital Transformation is singled out as a separate issue, as it is at the heart of many possible solutions, or at least provides an opportunity to address all three challenges. For example, digital transformation is already affecting many aspects of transport need and provision, such as by enabling working from home, the increase in e-shopping and the advent of mobility apps. Digital transformation involves access to and the availability of information and tickets; but will also influence the actual need to travel in the future, and the requirement for new transport infrastructure

Emerging technologies such as autonomous vehicles cannot be allowed to define government objectives. Instead, an early recognition of new trends, separating signals from the noise, should enable us to harness such technologies to support government objectives, not drive them. This requires early and continued monitoring. This is also true for the anticipation of and responses to the longer term impacts of Covid-19. Monitoring changes in travel behaviour is possible, and it must lead to infrastructure performance and resulting investment adapting to recent and future disruptions. The NIC response should be driven by evidence rather than aspiration.

Many of the ways of tackling all three challenges necessitates the spatial planning process to work hand in glove with transport planning and infrastructure. This needs to be effectively recognised in any infrastructure strategy.

Our more detailed response below focuses on two of the eight challenges and three of the sixteen questions posed in the baseline report. As the Transport Planning Society, we believe that this is where our expertise can add most value to the consultation.

Challenge 8: Urban mobility and congestion – the Commission will examine how the development of at scale mass transit systems can support productivity in cities and city regions and consider the role of congestion charging and other demand management measures. 

Mass Transit systems

It is positive to see the Commission state that demand management policies will be needed in conjunction with Mass Transit solutions. This will not only support agglomeration and productivity, but also facilitate sustainable mode shift. Mass Transit can be rail or road (bus or LRT/tram) based and experience from North America is that systems lead to, or are developed most effectively in conjunction with, Transit Oriented Development (TOD)¹.

As has been seen with Nottingham City Council’s Workplace Parking Levy², changes in travel behaviour cannot occur without the introduction of disincentives, like vehicle or parking charges, to dissuade private car and van use.

Improved connectivity and reduced congestion are not the only benefits of developing at scale Mass Transit systems. The Commission should also acknowledge:

• Supporting levelling up: in ensuring that Mass Transit systems serve less affluent areas – which have historically been overlooked regarding infrastructure investment – access to employment, education, and public services will be unlocked.
• Reaching net zero: the public are more in tune than ever before with regard to the impacts of climate change and the need for carbon neutrality³, and to capitalise on that attention and public goodwill, conversations should be re-framed to consider this.

However, there are certain challenges which also link to Challenge 9 (Interurban transport access). It is important to consider where related economic indicators such as wellbeing and levelling up fit in with productivity. The economic benefits of Mass Transit systems must be shared equally, recognising that much of the past funding in this area has been focused on specific affluent areas of city regions⁴. The Commission must also recognise that a modal shift to Mass Transit will lead to decongestion on the roads, and benefits may be lost to increasing car demand if not locked in (for example through road pricing or parking control mechanisms).

The Role of Active Travel

Largely left out of this document is recognition of the role that active travel can play individually and integrated with other sustainable modes. A high-quality and successful active travel network requires investment and changes to infrastructure prioritisation as an integral part of the initial spatial planning process, location and development design.

Walking and cycling can generate health, environmental, social and economic benefits; meeting national walking and cycling targets might generate savings of more than £500 million annually from air quality, congestion, and emissions improvements⁵. New walking and cycling infrastructure can also improve the accessibility of jobs and other local facilities and services, for example, by addressing issues of severance and affordability. This can, in turn, provide new economic opportunities for people living in areas with high unemployment rates and high levels of deprivation⁶, and potentially reduce the need for more expensive road infrastructure.

Active travel as part of a multi modal system

Walking and cycling cater particularly well for shorter trips, which make up the majority of people’s daily travel. In 2019, around 58% of car trips were less than 5 miles and around a quarter were less than 2 miles⁷. An integrated transport system, combining mass transport systems and cycling/walking that work in tandem with each other, will increase the inclusivity of both sustainable modes as a transport option while also increasing their scale and encouraging a larger modal shift away from cars. This practice could also provide benefits by supporting better integration between city and rural transport systems.

The Netherlands demonstrates the benefit of this multi-modal approach. 35% of all train journeys in the Netherlands start with a bicycle trip and 12% of journeys end with a trip on the cycle path directly meant for connection to railways⁸. This integrated cycling and rail transit system in the Netherlands has been made possible through the installation of continuous cycling infrastructure. The provision of cycling services at train stations also helps integration, such as high-quality secure cycle parking facilities at stations, the creation of bike onboard facilities and regulations, and behaviour change interventions such as education and cycle hire schemes.

The Commission could benefit from researching best practice in the Netherlands, (as well as Germany and Denmark) and including the significant contribution that integration of Active Travel with public transport networks can make to decarbonisation and healthy living. The benefits of the successful integration of cycling and Mass Transit are expressed well by Kager and Harms (2017).⁹

“Improved integration of cycling and transit has the potential to overcome the fundamental limitations of each mode by combining their opposite strengths of flexibility and action radius. The benefits of such integration potentially extend beyond user benefits and the trip level.”

Challenge 9: Interurban transport across modes – the Commission will consider relative priorities and long-term investment needs, including the role of new technologies, as part of a strategic multimodal transport plan. 

There are several significant barriers to interurban transport, specifically public transport services. The cost of travel can exclude large cross-sections of society.^{10, 11, 12} As patronage has declined bus operators have adopted a “mop up” approach with indirect routes linking as many settlements as possible, thereby continuing to provide lifeline connectivity at the expense of deterring those with faster, direct alternatives. On rail too, the introduction of additional station calls into express services has a negative impact on patronage as rail’s speed advantage over car reduces. It is encouraging to see that the Commission will consider costs and savings across different social groups, particularly if this extends to both urban and non-urban settings.

Importance of non-urban transport infrastructure

In the Assessment, it is evident that the Commission mistakenly sees non-urban and urban settings as two separate entities, and as a result gives minimal consideration to ‘non-urban’ transport infrastructure needs apart from those linking major settlements. Any publication of a strategic multimodal transport plan should ensure that there are suitable, top-down mechanisms (including significant levels of investment), in place to improve transport provision for non-urban communities situated between urban areas. This would help to address provision disparity within non-urban settings and could reduce human capital flight if people are able to live rurally yet work centrally.

Investment in interurban road and rail is noted by the Commission as supporting regional growth; investment in bus and cycling infrastructure can also support this growth whilst contributing further to the Government’s net zero and levelling up ambitions, particularly if combined with the promotion and possibly the subsidisation of electric buses and cycles.

Shared mobility schemes could offer significant benefits both in urban and inter-urban situations as well as addressing the three challenges. It should be part of the overall strategy for investment.

Overemphasis on EVs and new technologies

It is positive that reaching net zero has been listed as a key strategic theme, however, the Commission, in common with current Government policy, places too much emphasis on electric vehicles (EVs) as a way of achieving transport decarbonisation. The way we plan for places and people has to be a key consideration when seeking to achieve net zero: it can help avoid the need to travel as well as ensure people can use sustainable transport modes.

Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles (PHEV) have been found to only be slightly better than traditional fossil fuel vehicles in terms of emission outputs¹³ and even Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) will not be zero carbon vehicles until:

1. The electricity which fuels them is net zero. There is debate over when this date may be exactly, but even the most generous estimates recognise it’s unlikely to be in the next 10 years
2. The problem of particulates emitted from brakes and tyres is solved by the discovery of alternative non-polluting materials or technologies for their manufacture
3. Embedded carbon tied to the manufacture of EVs is eliminated. These emissions would be more excusable if they were replacing the existing fleet, but this is not always the case. The carbon involved in manufacturing will decrease as we decarbonise the process

Near term carbon reductions must instead take priority. And electrification of the vehicle fleet is not risk-free. Low operating costs may incentivise EV owners to drive more, unless some form of road pricing is introduced. We need to question who owns EVs and whether the benefits of reduced costs are distributed fairly. Equality needs to be considered, so that lack of access to off-street parking and charging facilities, for example, does not exclude certain parts of society.

Instead, greater weight and infrastructure investment should be afforded to active and sustainable interurban modes to help reach net zero. E-bikes and the necessary infrastructure to encourage their purchase should be part of this. A recent Danish study found that new e-bike owners increased their bicycle use from 2.1 kilometres to 9.2 kilometres a day on average, making 49% of all journeys by e-bike compared to 17% before their purchase. This suggests they could also play a huge part in supporting interurban journeys.¹⁴

Whilst the adoption of new digital technologies can improve journey time and quality, as seen with the introduction of metrobus iPoints in the greater Bristol area¹⁵, it is surprising that the report does not acknowledge the problem that digital innovation can exclude certain social groups from using transport. The Commission must fully consider how new technologies should be equitable and increase access to interurban services for all social groups, in particular older and younger people as well as those on low incomes.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Transport Forum’s (ITF) Innovations for Better Rural Mobility research report¹⁶ recommends the introduction of a rural-centric sustainable accessibility policy. This should be considered by the Commission.

Question 2: What changes to funding policy help address the Commission’s nine challenges and what evidence is there to support this? Your response can cover any number of the Commission’s challenges. 

Decentralisation

TPS would like to see a shift in tax and spend powers from central to local administration to address productivity and levelling-up issues. This applies particularly for the two transport-related Challenges 8 and 9. These necessary changes, although controversial and likely to be resisted by the Treasury, should begin with encouraging Local Authorities to make greater use of existing legislation in hypothecation with or without ring-fencing conditions. There are good examples of this within the transport policy area including London’s congestion charge and the Nottingham workplace parking/tram financing regime.¹⁷

Experience has shown that the best outcomes can be achieved when transport is planned at the local level consistently over a long period of time and with a degree of certainty over availability of budget. The Commission should learn from the plans in Leicester, currently embarking on a workplace parking scheme similar to Nottingham, for example by a carefully designed monitoring exercise.¹⁸

Motor taxes

The Commission cannot ignore the challenge of falling fuel duty income as a result of continued electrification of the vehicle fleet and the downstream impacts on funding available for infrastructure spend. We recommend a comprehensive review of pay-as-you-go road use, current tolling regimes and parking pricing. This should be undertaken to inform national and local level policy and to ensure pricing strategies are encouraging rather than discouraging the switch to electric vehicles and sustainable modes, bearing in mind that EVs are not a silver bullet. The RAC foundation and Institute of Fiscal Studies conducted research into the reformation of the current system of motor taxation which concluded that a per mile charge was a sensible and credible alternative.¹⁹

The appraisal system

We have talked about the disparities in transport funding in detail previously,²⁰ which is best highlighted by the £27 billion committed to road transport in the Third Road Investment Strategy.²¹ This funding is in competition with funding for greener forms of transport like the Government’s ambitious National Bus Strategy and Mass Transit systems which will improve productivity, among other things, and reduce congestion. Interurban transport will likely be improved via the Road Investment Strategy, but a greater emphasis should be put on a multi modal system as Challenge 9 rightly highlights.

Part of the reason for the disparity in funding is the make up of the transport appraisal and business case system. This is again something TPS has covered in further detail before. Some of the improvements we would like to see to the appraisal system include:

• The way travel time savings are valued
• A pass/fail grade linked to CO2 emissions
• Greater understanding and representation of behavioural change
• Introduction of the tonne years CO2 equivalent metric²³

We also believe that the way in which project appraisal deals with options based on revenue expenditure rather than capital and schemes involving both, needs to be better considered: this may require revisions to guidance or to appraisal techniques and tools, quite likely a mixture of both. This is particularly apposite for bus network additions or revisions and minor highway and traffic management schemes to facilitate improvements in bus speeds and reliability.

Question 5: What are the main opportunities in terms of governance, policy, regulation and market mechanisms that may help solve any of the Commission’s nine challenges for the Next Assessment? What are the main barriers? Your response can cover any number of the Commission’s challenges.

Local Transport Plans

The Department for Transport’s (DfT) incoming Local Transport Plan (LTP) guidance can contribute to solving the Commission’s transport-related challenges set out in the Baseline Report if the two are developed in partnership rather than in silo. This will be the first time in almost a decade that Local Authorities will be required to produce an LTP, therefore it is crucial that narratives surrounding transport infrastructure are, at the very least, aligned and consistent with the NIC’s three challenges and Government objectives. These conversations should start now. TPS would strongly suggest that they should be against a background of the desirability of planning and funding transport across areas that may well be larger than many current local authorities. The Government needs to review and simplify strategic spatial and transport planning and funding responsibilities. Currently there are significant grey areas between Sub-national Transport Bodies, Local Authorities (even in Combined Authority areas) and LEPs.

Car mileage reduction and road pricing

To reach net zero, we need to reduce car mileage by 20% at the minimum.²⁴ However, there is currently no national requirement or guidance to enable transport authorities to do so. The commission should look to address this. As we know from past examples there is likely to be consumer resistance to any additional costs to motoring, but this should be viewed as a barrier to overcome (through effective PR and engagement campaigns) rather than a reason not to pursue changes to pricing.

TPS have previously explored the benefits of re-introducing the fuel duty escalator to immediately reduce carbon from road travel that is still heavily reliant on petrol.²⁵ It was estimated that the discontinuation of the fuel duty escalator has cost the Treasury £50 billion, which could have been spent elsewhere improving interurban multimodal transport, as per challenge nine, or urban mass transit systems as per challenge 8.²⁶

On a wider scale, serious thought should be put into a logical incentive and disincentive system for decarbonising road transport. Some form of motoring tax is the surest way to ensure emissions from private vehicles don’t continue to rise.²⁷

Levelling up and devolution

The existing governance context around transport and movement is disjointed and variable across the nation. Responsibility for transport is so fragmented that no authority has managed to create coherence in transport infrastructure, given the public/private split in particular. In addition, the DfT retains a very tight degree of control over most matters, whereas in other OECD countries there is devolution down to regional or lower tier municipalities to determine things like fares, service patterns, investment decisions, revenue raising and route choices. TPS favours a regional approach based on the hinterlands of significant conurbations or free-standing cities. Although there is no definitive way of drawing such boundaries, a useful approach was adopted in work for the Welsh Spatial Plan in the early 2000’s where the concept of fuzzy boundaries was used to acknowledge that, for example, the logical area over which to administer education need not be the same as the logical area for transport or digital services.

The UK’s rigid management of the transport sector is inflexible, has struggled to cope with external shocks such as the Covid-19 pandemic and can fail to offer communities the comprehensive and integrated service they want for their areas. This is why the levelling up agenda should be accompanied by a devolution of powers.

The government’s current commitment to the policy of levelling up presents an opportunity and is likely to mean additional devolution is offered to sub-regions with the probability of having more mayors and governors for urban but also non-urban areas. The more funding that is available through mechanisms like the Levelling Up Fund, the greater chance city regions will have in developing the type of transport systems that support productivity while aiding net zero targets.

It will similarly give regions the capacity to substantially invest in the multi modal interurban transport options raised in Challenge 9. There will be barriers, not least the political challenges involved in persuading the national government to relinquish central control. But ultimately the current focus on the levelling up agenda is a cause for optimism.

The inability for transport authorities to control or predict their funding settlements beyond a single year, due to a reluctance for long term funding arrangements, coupled with principally two-tier authority areas providing a separation of planning and transport functions between competing bodies, does not produce coherently planned transport networks and services. On top of this, the lack of a national strategy for planning and transport in England has generated significant additional downwards pressure on Local Authorities to fill the gap with plans and strategies to both provide local detail but also cover regional/national interests. This gap has added significant delay to major, nationally important transport schemes being progressed through to the development consent order stage, with the nationally significant infrastructure project regime already highlighted as requiring change.²⁸ Additionally, with the private control of bus and rail services, as well as the two national transport delivery bodies, even with the highest level of collaboration, preparing and delivering a coherent transport plan can be extremely difficult.

The consequences of Covid-19

The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the need for industry wide bus and rail fiscal support through 2020 and 2021, to protect baseline service provision. It has illustrated the case for a new approach. With rail franchising on its way out, the rail industry should look to the formal introduction of a concession model nationwide, similar to TfL’s, managed by local transport authorities.

The roll out of a national smart card system (based on the national ITSO protocols and including implementation on contactless bank and identity cards), reform of the ticketing regime for rail fares and introduction of a UK-wide recommended structure for local bus and tram/Metro fares would be immensely beneficial. Reforms should reflect the changed travel market; for example, towards more flexible commuting patterns that are emerging, and the observed increase in leisure activity since the pandemic.²⁹ Bus, rail and light rail encounter unnecessary barriers to cooperation, hindering interchange and multimodal travel. The lack of appetite amongst transport authorities for enhanced bus partnerships without threat from government, and the long decline in bus patronage³⁰ stimulated by the deregulated environment³¹ in comparison to the London model, presses the need for greater local control and direction over the provision of services. There is also a significant capability and capacity gap in local authorities in this field.

Question 16: What evidence is there of the effectiveness in reducing congestion of different approaches to demand management used in cities around the world, including, but not limited to, congestion charging, and what are the different approaches used to build public consensus for such measures? 

It is encouraging that the report recognises the importance of demand management measures and congestion charging in order to tackle congestion in urban areas. The global evidence of demand management’s effectiveness is well documented. TPS and ICE members have previously relayed relevant evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee.

Examples of best practice encompass a broad range of demand management techniques including Singapore (Electronic Road Pricing, ERP)³², Stockholm³³/Washington³⁴ (congestion charge, bus strategy and parking management), and Nottingham (Workplace Parking Levy).³⁵

The role of public relations campaigns as an integral part of these schemes cannot be overstated. Demand management and road congestion schemes are almost always met with some level of opposition. It’s vitally important early and frequent engagement takes place to understand and address the concerns with the proposed schemes. The benefits of demand managements schemes need to be communicated to those most affected, clearly and frequently.

Fostering a modal shift

It is so important that the implementation of congestion charges, and the expansion of congestion charge zones, are preceded by, or at least implemented concurrently with, broader improvements to the transport system. In doing this, congestion is reduced and public consensus built on charging schemes supporting mode shift away from cars. The Our Future Towns project, a Royal College of Arts initiative to which the Transport Planning Society contributed, was developed with people from across the country to reimagine how they can engage with the challenges of community place-making and transport planning.³⁶

The original introduction of the London Congestion Charge was accompanied by the introduction of 300 extra buses. But public transport enhancements are only part of the story. Active Travel can also provide alternative transport options and reduce congestion. London’s new east-west and north-south cycle routes are moving 46% of the people in only 30% of the road space.³⁷ Supporting modal switch requires:

• Improvements in Active Travel and public transport infrastructure
• Enhancements to public and shared transport services
• Behaviour change initiatives such as travel buddying schemes³⁸ (both for those lacking confidence or less able people) and the delivery of cycle training
• Cycle hire schemes
• Education in available transport options, particularly in schools but also for post statutory learning age groups.

Acknowledgements

Corresponding author: Tom van Vuren, Director of Policy (tom.van.vuren@veitchlister.com). Contributions by Rose Yorke Barber, Victoria Heald, Alexis Edwards, Lynda Addison, John Carr, Howard Potter, Mark Frost, Alex Bennett, Lauren James and Spyridoula Vitouladiti.

Bibliography

1. Transit Oriented Development Institute. (2021)
2. Centre for Cities. (2017) Reviewing the funding and finance options available to city and combined authorities. Centre for Cities.
3. Ipsos Mori. (2021) The public recognise the link between climate change and health, and generally do not have strong views on the role of the NHS and social care in responding to climate change. Ipsos Mori.
4. Ipsos Mori. (2021) UK public highly supportive of COP26 goals but few expect the government to take the steps needed. Ipsos Mori.
5. Department for Transport. (2019) Walking and Cycling Statistics, England: 2019. Department for Transport.
6. Campaign for Better Transport. (2018) The future of rural bus services in the UK. Campaign for Better Transport.
7. ADEPT. (2021) Policy Challenge Paper: Transport Decarbonisation Plan September 2021. ADEPT.
8. Cycling UK. (2021) Cycling UK’S Cycling Statistics. Cycling UK.
9. Department for Transport. (2021) Gear Change: One Year On. Department for Transport.
10. Sustrans. (2011) Cycling in the city regions Delivering a step change. Urban Transport Group.
11. Harms, L. and Kager, R. (2017) Synergies from Improved Cycling-Transit Integration: Towards an integrated urban mobility system. International Transport Discussion Papers.
12. Social Exclusion Unit. (2003) Making the connections: Final report on transport and social exclusion. International Labour Organisation.
13. Bourn, R. (2013) No entry! Transport barriers facing young people. Intergenerational Foundation & Campaign for Better Transport.
14. Crisp, R., Ferrari, E., Gore, T., Green, S., McCarthy, L., Reeve K., Stevens, M., & Rae, A. (2018). Tackling Transport-related barriers to employment in low-income neighbourhoods. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
15. Transport and Environment. (2020) UK briefing: The plug-in hybrid con. Transport and Environment.
16. Beate Sundfor, H and Fyhri, A. (2020) Do people who buy e-bikes cycle more? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.
17. Travelwest. (2021) Metrobus: A modern public transport system for the greater Bristol area. Travelwest.
18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / International Transport Forum. (2021) Innovations for better rural mobility. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / International Transport Forum.
19. Browne, D. (2022) Leicester aims for workplace parking levy by 2023. Highways Magazine.
20. Raccuga, G. (2017) Miles Better: A distance-based charge to replace Fuel Duty and VED, collected by insurers. Policy Exchange.
21. Anable, J. Cairns, S. Goodman, A. Goodwin, P. Hiblin, P. Hopkinson, L. Kirkbride, A. Newson, C. Sloman, L. (2021) The last chance saloon: we need to cut car mileage by at least 20%. Transport for Quality of Life.
22. Government Business (2020) Ending fuel duty freeze could treble NHS budget. Government Business.
23. Transport Planning Society (2021) Department for Transport: Decarbonising Transport – A Better, Greener Britain. Transport Planning Society
24. Department for Transport (2021) Bus Back Better (also referred to as the National Bus Strategy)
25. Pincher, C. (2021) Letter to NIPA. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Correspondence.
26. Fine, P. A. Friedlander, K. J. Morse, K. F. (2021) Creativity and Leisure During COVID-19: Examining the Relationship Between Leisure Activities, Motivations, and Psychological Well-Being. Frontiers in Psychology.
27. Hrelja, R. McTigue, C. Monios, J. Rye, T (2021) Partnership or franchising to improve bus services in two major English urban regions? An institutional analysis. Transport Policy.
28. Mathew, S. and Pulugurtha, S. S. (2019) How Effective are Toll Roads in Improving Operational Performance? San Jose State University
29. Jablonska, J. (2019) How Stockholm broke its gridlock with congestion pricing. IBM
30. Tri-State Transportation Campaign (2018) Road Pricing In London, Stockholm And Singapore: A Way Forward For New York City. Tri-State Transportation Campaign.
31. Theseira, W. (2021) Singapore’s Experience with Road User Charges. International Transport Forum
32. Royal College of Arts (2020) Our Future Towns: Community Place Making and Transport Planning. Royal College of Art.
33. My Life My Choice. (2020), Travel Buddy Scheme

Download: The Second National Infrastructure Assessment: Call for evidence

Transport Planning Society response. The Second National Infrastructure Baseline Report was published by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) in November 2021.

---

1 Transit Oriented Development Institute. (2021) [http://www.tod.org/home.html]
2 Centre for Cities. (2017) Reviewing the funding and finance options available to city and combined authorities. Centre for Cities. [www.centreforcities.org/reader/funding-financing-inclusive-growthcities/reviewing-funding-finance-options-available-city-combined-authorities/#using-a-workplace-parkinglevy-to-support-investment-in-public-transport].
3 1.Ipsos Mori. (2021) The public recognise the link between climate change and health, and generally do not have strong views on the role of the NHS and social care in responding to climate change. Ipsos Mori. [https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/public-recognise-link-between-climate-change-and-health-andgenerally-do-not-have-strong-views-role]. 2. Ipsos Mori. (2021) UK public highly supportive of COP26 goals but few expect the government to take the steps needed. Ipsos Mori. [https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/uk-public-highly-supportive-cop26-goalsfew-expect-government-take-steps-needed].
4 Campaign for Better Transport. (2018) The future of rural bus services in the UK. Campaign for Better Transport. [https://bettertransport.org.uk/sites/default/files/research-files/The-Future-of-Rural-Bus-Services.pdf].
5 Department for Transport. (2019) Walking and Cycling Statistics, England: 2019. Department for Transport. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906698/walking-and-cycling-statistics-england-2019.pdf].
6 ADEPT. (2021) Policy Challenge Paper: Transport Decarbonisation Plan September 2021. ADEPT. [https://adeptnet.org.uk/system/files/documents/ADEPT%20policy%20challenge%20paper_Transport%20Decarbonisation%20Plan_Sept%202021_final.pdf].
7 Department for Transport. (2021) Gear Change: One Year On. Department for Transport. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007815/gear-change-one-year-on.pdf].
8 Sustrans. (2011) Cycling in the city regions Delivering a step change. Urban Transport Group. [https://www.urbantransportgroup.org/system/files/110411_Cycling_in_the_city_regions_Sustrans_PTEG_report_final.pdf].
9 Harms, L. and Kager, R. (2017) Synergies from Improved Cycling-Transit Integration: Towards an integrated urban mobility system. International Transport Discussion Papers.
10 Social Exclusion Unit. (2003) Making the connections: Final report on transport and social exclusion. International Labour Organisation. [www.ilo.org/emppolicy/pubs/WCMS_ASIST_8210/lang–en/index.htm].
11 Bourn, R. (2013) No entry! Transport barriers facing young people. Intergenerational Foundation & Campaign for Better Transport. [www.if.org.uk/research-posts/no-entrytransport-barriers-facing-youngpeople-government-policy-hits-young-hardest/].
12 Crisp, R., Ferrari, E., Gore, T., Green, S., McCarthy, L., Reeve K., Stevens, M., & Rae, A. (2018). Tackling Transport-related barriers to employment in low-income neighbourhoods. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. [www.jrf.org.uk/report/tackling-transport-related-barriers-employment-low-income-neighbourhoods]
13 Transport and Environment. (2020) UK briefing: The plug-in hybrid con. Transport and Environment. [www.transportenvironment.org/discover/uk-briefing-plug-hybrid-con/].
14 Beate Sundfor, H. and Fyhri, A. (2020) Do people who buy e-bikes cycle more? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092030609X#s0060].
15 Travelwest. (2021) Metrobus: A modern public transport system for the greater Bristol area. Travelwest.[travelwest.info/metrobus].
16 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / International Transport Forum. (2021) Innovations for better rural mobility. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / International Transport Forum. [www.itf-oecd.org/innovations-better-rural-mobility].
17 Centre for Cities. (2017) Reviewing the funding and finance options available to city and combined authorities.
18 Browne, D. (2022) Leicester aims for workplace parking levy by 2023. Highways Magazine. [https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Leicester-aims-for-workplace-parking-levy-by-2023/9459].
19 Raccuga, G. (2017) Miles Better: A distance-based charge to replace Fuel Duty and VED, collected by insurers. Policy Exchange. [https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Gergely-Raccuja-Miles-Better-Revised-Submission.pdf].
20 Transport Planning Society (2021) Department for Transport: Decarbonising Transport – A Better, Greener Britain. Transport Planning Society. [https://tps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/TPS-Response-to-TDP-and-COP.pdf].
21 Department for Transport (2021) Bus Back Better (also referred to as the National Bus Strategy) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-back-better]
22 Ibid.,
23 Ibid.,
24 Anable, J. Cairns, S. Goodman, A. Goodwin, P. Hiblin, P. Hopkinson, L. Kirkbride, A. Newson, C. Sloman, L. (2021) The last chance saloon: we need to cut car mileage by at least 20%. Transport for Quality of Life. [http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/211214%20The%20last%20chance%20saloon%20to%20cut%20car%20mileage.pdf].
25 Transport Planning Society (2021) Department for Transport: Decarbonising Transport – A Better, Greener Britain.
26 Government Business (2020) Ending fuel duty freeze could treble NHS budget. Government Business. [https://governmentbusiness.co.uk/news/10032020/ending-fuel-duty-freeze-could-treble-nhs-budget].
27 Transport Planning Society (2021) Department for Transport: Decarbonising Transport – A Better, Greener Britain.
28 Pincher, C. (2021) Letter to NIPA. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Correspondence. [https://www.nipa-uk.org/uploads/news/Letter_to_NIPA-Christopher_Pincher_MP.pdf].
29 Fine, P. A. Friedlander, K. J. Morse, K. F. (2021) Creativity and Leisure During COVID-19: Examining the Relationship Between Leisure Activities, Motivations, and Psychological Well-Being. Frontiers in Psychology. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0739885914000924?via%3Dihub].
30 Hrelja, R. McTigue, C. Monios, J. Rye, T (2021) Partnership or franchising to improve bus services in two major English urban regions? An institutional analysis. Transport Policy. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X21002584?via%3Dihub].
31 Ibid.,
32 Theseira, W. (2021) Singapore’s Experience with Road User Charges. International Transport Forum. [https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/singapore-experience-road-user-charges.pdf].
33 Jablonska, J. (2019) How Stockholm broke its gridlock with congestion pricing. IBM. [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/industries/stockholm-congestion-pricing-iot-analytics-government/].
34 Washington State Transport Commission. (2021) Low-income toll program study for I-405 and SR 167 express toll lanes. Washington State Transport Commission. [wstc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-WSTC-Tolling-Equity-Report.pdf].
35 Centre for Cities. (2017) Reviewing the funding and finance options available to city and combined authorities. Centre for Cities.
36 Royal College of Arts (2020) Our Future Towns: Community Place Making and Transport Planning. Royal College of Art. [https://rca-media2.rca.ac.uk/documents/RCA_OFT_v1_hnNddRQ.pdf].
37 Department for Transport. (2019) Walking and Cycling Statistics, England: 2019. Department for Transport.
38 My Life My Choice. (2020), Travel Buddy Scheme [https://www.mylifemychoice.org.uk/pages/14-travelbuddy]

Our Future Towns: Community Place Making and Transport Planning

CHANGING HEARTS AND MINDS THROUGH OUR FUTURE TOWNS

The Royal College of Art has released a new report following from a project instigated and part funded by the Transport Planning Society (TPS). The report summarises our design research with industry partners, local councils and charities in the communities of Biggleswade in Bedfordshire, Haltwhistle and surrounding parishes in Northumberland and Lyme Regis in Dorset.

The Covid19 pandemic has highlighted the fragility of our interconnected world: from the importance of our local communities to the impacts on our health, our study, our work and our natural environment.

In response to this and wider challenges about the future, designers from the Royal College of Art supported by TPS, as well as the CIHT, RTPI, and private organisations ITP, UK Regeneration and MBC, have come together to seek a better way forward.

Our Future Towns demonstrates a new approach to working with communities that will support the changes we need as a society, and that directly connects with government objectives on climate change and transport. It works in a collaborative way that changes the dynamics of a community and supports greater local autonomy.

“We are very excited to be involved with this project which is helping us to create a vision of how we, the community, want to live, work and move around our area as well as how best to welcome visitors, all in a sustainable and economic way. Our involvement is already facilitating conversations with organisations, statutory bodies, businesses and individuals which we hope will lead to a more holistic way forward that is rooted in community participation.” Julie Gibbon, Chair, Haltwhistle Partnership

“People in Lyme Regis greatly enjoyed the opportunity to participate in ‘Our Future Town’, explore their sense of belonging and pride in our town while expressing frustration over day-to-day difficulties and the challenges to change. In the hands of the skilled artists and designers at the RCA, our collective ideas and hopes were turned into creative visions of a calmer, greener, more community focused and environmentally friendly town centre.” Belinda Bawden, Town Councillor, Lyme Regis

“The frustrations expressed by members of our community about the existing problems of car usage mean that we are very keen to work with them to find alternative solutions to mobility within our town and beyond.” Cllr Madeline Russell, Mayor, Biggleswade

Key highlights of the work include:

• We need more creativity in the way we work with people to solve the problems that we face – focusing on the real opportunities around wellbeing, resilience and inclusion and taking people with us – their hearts and their minds – so we can all take action and imagine a better future together
• Our Future Town aims to create a bridge between ground – up community transitions and strategic and sustainable place making and mobility planning.
• We used a systems approach that understands that the greatest levers of change happen when we engage with people’s philosophies, feelings and knowledge.
• The four steps in this approach include listening to each other, learning together, helping people to imagine the future and providing support to make changes that matter.
• We developed a rich listening tool that turns people’s hopes, fears, loves and concerns into a shared experience that includes maps of possible futures and potential utopias and dystopias that summarise a community’s opportunities and challenges.
• We created learning and change cards that help people to build a shared understanding of the issues involved in place-making and transport planning, and use visualisations to highlight the community impact of our current ways of living.
• We designed prototype interfaces for digital maps and street views that allow people to ‘drag and drop’ new routes and paths for walking and cycling and identify places and buildings that needed more than just a lick of paint.
• We also imagined augmented reality tools that allow people to see what these changes would look like on their mobile phones and to be able to comment on and share these at home or when out and abou

The TPS and RCA are now establishing future partners and funding streams as well as working with existing communities and new developments to find ways of testing and developing these tools collaboratively.

The project was led by the Intelligent Mobility Design Centre at the RCA and included an interdisciplinary team from mobility design, architecture, communication and service design. Stakeholders who provided additional knowledge include Living Streets, Sustrans, The RAC Foundation, The National Association of Local Councils, The Centre for Ageing Better and Social Research Associates Ltd.

A recording of the presentation given at Transport Planning Day 2020 by Lynda Addison, OBE and Dan Phillips from the Royal College of Art can be found here https://vimeo.com/icegroup/review/480307552/22f3434542 s

Download the report here https://rca-media2.rca.ac.uk/documents/RCA_OFT_v1_hnNddRQ.pdf

For further information or images please contact the Intelligent Mobility Design Centre ℅ imdc@rca.ac.uk, visit https://www.rca.ac.uk/research-innovation/projects/our-future-towns-community-placemaking-and-transport-planning/

Transport Planning Society’s Full Response

Following the publication of the Transport Decarbonisation Plan (TDP) by the Department for Transport, the Transport Planning Society offers here its response; the timeliness and importance of the TDP is illustrated by the findings in the latest IPPC report Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. The plan offers a welcome, all-encompassing strategy for the transport industry to reach Net Zero by 2050 detailing how each mode will get there. Below, we respond to the strategy with reference to our report “State of the Nations: Transport planning for a sustainable future”, published last year (2020). The report offered 10 recommendations to the government clearly outlining how the transport industry should be moving forward regarding sustainability and decarbonisation, and these remain just as important as we go forward into the decade in which we must meet the decarbonisation challenge facing the country and the world.

As a Society we urge the government to follow through on the proposed actions in the TDP as soon as possible. The recent IPPC report Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis makes for stark reading: climate change is already affecting every region across the globe even at current levels of warming. We believe that the wider population is ready for action: according to a recent poll a third of the British public see the environment and climate change as a big issue for the country¹.

The Transport Decarbonisation Plan (TDP) and COP26

For the sake of clarity, we will outline the ten recommendations we made in our State of the Nations report and explore how the decarbonisation plan addresses them. We will then look forward to COP26 and see what government must do to meet our ambitions in light of the Climate Change Conference.

1. Transport planning needs to be more inclusive: it needs to unhook people from car dependence, giving them healthier and more sustainable travel choices, including travelling less. It also has to help tackle climate change; previous patterns of surface travel, dominated by private cars and trucks fuelled by oil, must change dramatically.

In terms of our first State of the Nations recommendation, the TDP includes both positives and negatives.

Dramatic change necessary

The significant £2 billion invested into active travel is commendable, particularly accompanied by the commitment that active travel will account for half of the journeys made in every town and city by 2040. But is it enough? This investment represents only around £6 per head of population per year. In comparison, in The Netherlands the government appears to spend some £25 per head of population² per year.

We want to see more active travel funding committed each year.

Patterns of surface transport must change

And even as it promotes active travel, the overall tone of the strategy cannot fully break from the notion of planning transport to serve the car. The £27 billion committed to road transport in the Road Investment Strategy is more than for all other modes combined in the TDP. Throughout the document there tends to be a stronger focus on electrifying private vehicles than on reducing car journeys altogether.

The Secretary of State made multiple comments in the House of Commons when announcing the plan, as well as in the communications that accompanied it, that he is not anti-car. Yet surface transport has failed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, with recent trends showing an increase³. Electric vehicles are not emissions-free, whether embedded into the production of the vehicles, the generation of electricity or the emissions at street level from brake and tyre wear⁴. Reducing emissions will require unhooking people from car dependence so significantly fewer short trips are made by private vehicles, including electric vehicles.

More than just electrification – lifestyle and land use changes

There are tangible drawbacks to focusing solely on the electrification of private cars. Our end goal should not be to electrify all current car journeys. Estimates show that even if all vehicles were EVs, we would still need between a 20-60% reduction in road traffic mileage to reach our decarbonisation goal⁵.

First of all, more research is necessary to establish whether EVs are adding to or replacing the existing fleet (research from Norway, for example, suggests 15-20% of electric vehicles represent cars that would not have been purchased if there were no electric vehicles on the market)⁶. The EVs that are second cars do not directly replace older vehicles using petrol or diesel. In addition, it is worth noting that EVs will not be zero carbon vehicles until:

a) the electricity which fuels them is net zero. There is debate over when this date may be exactly, but even the most generous estimates recognise it’s unlikely to be in the next 10 years⁷. And;

b) embedded carbon tied to the manufacture of EVs is eliminated. These emissions would be more excusable if they were replacing the existing fleet but as we have mentioned this is not always the case. The carbon involved in manufacturing will decrease as we decarbonise the process but currently it is still a considerable amount. Government policy should address this gap.

Near term carbon reductions must instead take priority. Electrification of the vehicle fleet is not risk-free. Low operating costs may incentivise EV owners to drive more, unless some form of road pricing is introduced. Who owns EVs and are the benefits of reduced costs distributed fairly? Equality needs to be considered, so that access to off-street parking or not does not exclude certain parts of society of access to cleaner alternatives to the ICE in the run-up to net-zero.

Having said this, electrifying private vehicles for remaining essential trips, for which no easy carbon-neutral alternatives exist, is still a goal to work towards. Analysis by Professor Jillian Anable at the Institute for Transport Studies at Leeds University for example suggests that most carbon emissions from cars are for longer trips that are only really viable by this mode as a consequence of highly distributed origins and destinations. Unless spatial planning addresses this, EVs are an inevitable component in the future transport mix.

Address regional disparities in charging infrastructure

What is an absolute necessity for this shift for essential trips to be successful is for our charging infrastructure to meet the demands of a growing electric vehicle fleet. This means both sufficient charging stations correctly placed (on carriageways not on footpaths to allow for disabled travellers to use walkways), but also distributed evenly across the nation and reflecting both existing needs and the decarbonisation policy.

There is a disparity between London and the rest of the country. For example, 30.3% of UK charge points are located in the Greater London area⁸ while only 6.6%, 5.1% and 3.3% in the North West, Yorkshire & Humber and North East regions, respectively – totalling only 15% together. This is despite the fact these Northern regions’ populations amount to 6 million more people than in Greater London.

Increasing the number of overall charge points installed is a first step, but greater focus to ensure they are proportionately dispersed across the nation is critical to a fair and inclusive transition.

Universal charging points

Another logistical problem we need to overcome with our charging infrastructure is the varying types of plugs that EVs and charge points have. Different charge points offer different plugs  reducing the availability and ease of charging and raising the threshold to EV adoption by consumers.

The government should commit to a universal charging infrastructure standard,
which we hope could be unveiled at COP26.

Micromobility

A mode that will likely play a major role in unhooking car dependence is the e-scooter. Research indicates that in car dominated areas (dense urban locations like European or Northern American capital cities) e-scooters have the potential to reduce the number of car trips by 8-50%⁹. Of course, e-scooters will be most effective when substituting for car journeys, rather than shorter journeys taken by bike or foot that provide health and community benefits.

A key concern for e-scooters is safety of riders and fellow road users, or perceived safety. While e-scooters are not without some safety issues, they are negligible when compared to the dangers of the car, both to those inside and outside the vehicle¹⁰.

If e-scooter schemes are successful, the DfT must accompany their introduction with strong marketing campaigns as well as safety awareness and training for riders to address these concerns, particularly surrounding privately owned e-scooters. Further effort is required in how government will support and regulate the safe deployment of e-scooters as an additional low-carbon alternative to the private car.

E-bikes are also crucial in unhooking car dependence and reducing emissions. Researchers at the University of Leeds found that if e-bikes were used to make car trips they could replace they have the capability to cut emissions in England by up to 50%, roughly 30 million tonnes per year¹¹. E-mobility will be an important part of our route to net zero, and follow up actions from the TDP should establish how to integrate this into our transport systems.

2. Transport policies need to provide a clear route map to net zero by 2050 and to meet the five-year carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act. This will involve “avoid, shift, improve” strategies – reducing travel through better planning, shifting travel from low occupancy motor vehicles to shared, active and sustainable transport, and electrifying and improving the motor vehicles. These policies should also inform transport spending priorities

The plan is to be commended for demonstrating a ‘route map to net zero by 2050’. It is the first of its kind to address how each specific mode will meet the government’s ambitions of net zero by 2050. The funding, political leadership and direction shown in the TDP are very welcome. Yet detail is sparse and most of the interventions aim to “improve”.

We would welcome further detailed funding plans on modal shift,
light or micro-mobility and embedded carbon in manufacture.

Spatial planning

The Transport Planning Society is a strong advocate for a better integration of land use and transport planning to reduce the need to travel. Embedding decarbonisation in spatial planning and across transport policymaking shows the government’s readiness.

The TDP is very light on “avoid” policies;
we would like to see stronger and earlier action.

Funding

Policies that focus on walking, cycling and public transport should be the priority to help achieve the necessary levels of traffic reduction (“shift”). It is also imperative that the accompanying funding is cost-effective at realising mode shift.

Cycling in the UK has consistently hovered around 2% of all journeys travelled, while the Netherlands provides a more successful model (27% of all journeys)¹². We welcome the creation of Active Travel England to achieve the quality required. If Active Travel England receives the sustained funding it needs then the UK’s percentage of journeys travelled by cycles should creep up, particularly in our towns and cities, but we have concerns that it will not be enough to achieve the government’s own target of 50% of trips to be made by active modes by 2030.

As we mentioned before, the £2 billion attributed to active travel over a five year period is a welcome start, but this level of investment will have to be sustained moving forward if we are to match our Northern European neighbours.

Integrated behaviour change campaigns

The government should accompany investment in infrastructure with behaviour change campaigns that encourage a modal shift in response.

Funding is paramount, but persuasive communications and community engagement will be just as important in facilitating change.

Campaigns must stress how important it is to move to sustainable forms of transport in the immediate future. These campaigns must be sustained, not on/off activities linked to the success or otherwise of funding bids.

The rise of deliveries

The Department for Transport and local authorities must be able to respond to societal and economic shifts that lead to more emissions from transport. These often come in the form of unintended consequences, like the rise of deliveries associated with e-commerce. Last mile deliveries were initially expected to result in a reduction in emissions as less journeys were made by consumers. But now, growing demand for deliveries is expected to increase the number of vehicles in inner cities by 36% by 2030, leading to an increase in emissions of 30% in the top 100 cities globally in the same time frame if no action is taken¹³.

The government should support last mile deliveries by active and micro-modes to see fewer emissions from the emerging increase in the amount of transport demand.

New technologies such as drones may play a role; but we should not ignore what, for example, the humble bicycle can achieve: electric cargo bikes can deliver 60% faster than vans in urban centres, and cut emissions by 90% compared with diesel vans and by a third when compared with electric vans¹⁴.

3. The UK Government should draw up a national transport strategy for England to provide a framework for and to consolidate its different strategies and guidance.

As we have mentioned previously, the TDP addresses all modes of transport, threading them together into a thorough plan.

Areas for further exploration

There are areas of transport decarbonisation that require further attention. Data plays a key role in all transport systems, and we should be doing all we can to reduce the barriers to data sharing across the transport sector.

A transport data strategy may be desirable, but we must make sure it is accessible to local authorities and all stakeholders in general, keeping in mind both the resource and IT challenges that local authorities often face.

In implementing the TDP, the government should recognise the key differences felt throughout the UK between transport systems in rural, urban and suburban/peri-urban areas.

They typically require different solutions to decarbonisation – a uniform approach is detrimental to all. For example, the trialling of demand responsive transport networks suits rural areas better, yet if successful, could have positive impacts on both rural and urban areas. A shared mobility policy may allow such transport alternatives to become commercially successful in urban areas first, and lessons can be learnt before their introduction in more rural locations.

4. The Government should continue with devolution of transport powers and funding to local and city-region transport authorities and extend it elsewhere, reducing the fragmentation and complexity of transport decision-making and increasing accountability. In all three countries, local transport authorities and sub-national transport bodies should have the powers, duties and funding to tackle transport challenges, especially reducing carbon emissions.

We welcome the TDP’s response to this recommendation. The substantial £12 billion of funding committed to local transport systems over the current Parliament provides substantive backing to commitments from both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport. Despite this, the TDP talks less about what powers and duties local authorities will have.

Local authorities must have autonomy over the funding they receive from existing streams like the Levelling up fund, Active Travel Fund and City Region Sustainable Transport settlements.

We support linking the funding to Local Transport Plans that target a reduction in emissions, particularly with the accompanied guidance into how local authorities can design sustainable transport systems to achieve emissions reductions.

5. New planning and devolution/local government plans in each country should promote integrated transport and spatial planning so as to reduce the need to travel and help tackle climate change and social exclusion. The Government’s proposals for reform of the planning system provide an opportunity to achieve this

In the TDP there is loose commitment to ‘embed decarbonisation in spatial planning’ (‘avoid’). This is a positive sign but is one area which will need further detail in subsequent strategies; what exactly will this look like?

The way land is used must serve the goal of reducing the need to travel, particularly by car. This means that new housing projects should always be constructed with sustainable transport links in mind, whether that is public transport or active travel.

We are pleased to see the promise to develop a Local Authority toolkit which would guide local authorities in their planning and policy making, specifically in reference to decarbonisation.

Spatial and transport planning remain disconnected for regional and local authorities outside London, and this should be addressed by government in future policy papers and strategies.

Carbon reductions

The government has committed to drive decarbonisation at a local level by ‘making quantifiable carbon reductions a fundamental part of local transport planning and funding.’ This is encouraging, but quantifying carbon reduction is complicated and challenging for local authorities who struggle for skills and resource. As the Institute for Government notes, “Central government grants – including retained business rates – were cut 38% in real-terms between 2009/10 and 2018/19”¹⁵.

Exact guidance on how to quantify or at least estimate carbon reductions, especially in the promotion and delivery of walking and cycling schemes where this is notoriously difficult, must be a part of the local authority toolkit mentioned above for authorities to put this into practice with any success. 

6. Transport projects which increase carbon emissions must be withdrawn and funding for low and zero carbon transport projects and networks increased. The Governments should reduce the cost of using public transport and allow local authorities to do so in their areas.

Improvements to the quality and safety of existing road infrastructure will be positive but adding to road capacity runs absolutely contrary to the goals the government has clearly set out in the TDP. The government should recognise this.

Future budgets should redress the imbalance in funding between roads and sustainable forms of transport.

It is in stark contrast to the Welsh government, who suspended all new road building plans until the completion of an external review of all proposed schemes; the primary reason for this suspension was to meet net zero targets in 2050. The Welsh government will complement the postponement of road building with investments into alternative modes of transport to provide the Welsh population with meaningful transport choices.

Following the example in Wales, the government should assess suspending new road building as an approach for England, or at least commit to a review of the current Road Investment Strategy.

The commitment to review the outdated National Policy Statement for National Networks is very welcome.

Low carbon transport projects

There is significant government commitment to fund low and zero carbon transport projects. We welcomed the National Bus Strategy and Gear Change, for example, and their supporting £5bn of funding combined. Increased and sustained funding for these modes will be essential to support the required level of modal shift and associated carbon emissions.

Reducing the costs of public transport

We endorse the TDP’s commitment to “work with industry to modernise fares, ticketing and retail to encourage a shift to rail and cleaner and greener transport journeys.” As well as that vision we support that “We must make buses and trains better value and more competitively priced” particularly against the private car and short-haul aviation and would like to see concrete measures to make this a reality. We welcome news that the government is reconsidering the annual RPI-linked rail fare rise, for example.

The government must support the use of the large rail estate in the UK, using it to fit solar film panels onto station infrastructure, depots, control centres and offices, to power the stations themselves and produce surplus sustainable energy.

This process has already begun at some stations in the UK and should expand to include some of our larger stations where it will most likely prove even more effective¹⁶.

7. Local authorities should have a long-term funding regime for transport, so that they can plan ahead and spend effectively. Funding for packages of local measures to support zero carbon and sustainable transport should be increased. There should be more revenue funding to support transport services such as local bus and community transport services, which have important social and environmental benefits. Governments and local authorities should promote and fund “Total Transport” schemes to co-ordinate and bring together different transport services and funds from different public bodies.

Having £12 billion committed to local authorities over the current parliament on top of the other funding that is available to them through mode-specific investment may provide local authorities with a form of long-term certainty, yet under the surface it is not equally distributed regionally. If we compare the total service expenditure budgeted to 2021-2022 we see a 48% increase, but almost all of this can be accounted for in higher support to operators of Transport for London¹⁷. In the same time funding for local authorities outside of London will decrease¹⁸.

The government should recognise and address
regional funding disparities as a priority.

This is but one example of why the way funds are allocated to local authorities should be reformed.

TPS challenges the effectiveness of a competitive bidding system which often concentrates funding to the largest authorities/metro mayors. The government should increase the amount of ring-fenced funding so that all local authorities can commit to and continue to invest it into transport decarbonisation projects.

8. Future motoring taxes and charges should be reviewed to align with and support decarbonisation targets.

We welcome the government’s acknowledgement in the TDP that, “we will need to ensure that the tax system encourages the uptake of EVs and that revenue from motoring taxes keeps pace with this change, to ensure we can continue to fund the first-class public services and infrastructure that people and families across the UK expect”.

The TDP disappointingly makes no firm commitment to review the current fiscal incentives and disincentives in UK transport. This is a significant oversight of the decarbonisation plan, and the government should address how economic levers will be reviewed to not only achieve fiscal outcomes, but also support travel behaviour change.

A plan such as the TDP just cannot ignore the contribution that road user charging, at the local and national level, can make to decarbonisation.

The government must consider re-introducing the fuel duty escalator, to realise immediate carbon reduction from road travel that is still mainly dependent on the internal combustion engine.

A Government Business article¹⁹ estimates that ending the fuel duty escalator has cost the Treasury more than £50 billion since its discontinuation in 2011. That puts the £2 billion for walking and cycling over five years into a rather bleak perspective. The article also estimates that the freeze has led to 5% more traffic, 250 million fewer bus journeys, 75 million fewer rail journeys, an extra five million tonnes of CO2 and an extra 15,000 tonnes of NOx emissions.

A logical incentive system will be an essential mechanism for decarbonisation. Recent benefits arising from increased efficiency in vehicles, for instance, have been offset by increased vehicle size and use resulting in little to no net change in emissions from the sector²⁰. Similarly, successful EV incentives in Norway have not necessarily led to reduced emissions from transport as they can lead to the purchasing of EVs as a second vehicle²¹. The government must ensure the design of incentives are considered carefully to achieve the intended results and avoid unwanted and unforeseen knock-on impacts. Motoring taxes and charges offer the clearest mechanism to ensure emissions do not continue to rise as efficiency improves, particularly with the significantly reduced running costs of electric vehicles.

9. Local authorities should have a wider variety of powers to raise funding for transport, as local authorities in other countries do, and should be encouraged to make greater use of existing charging powers such as workplace parking levies, to fund transport and to manage traffic and congestion.

While the specifics of what local authority powers could be aren’t included in the plan, the TDP does grant them the autonomy to raise funds through local transport schemes. The actions following TDP should specify what local authority powers could look like: for example, local authorities having greater control over their public transport networks to decide which services to run and what fares to charge. The National Bus Strategy started this with local bus networks, and further strategies should build on it offering a route for more local authorities to pursue a franchised system.

The national government is taking a stronger stance on pressing local authorities to use funds earmarked for transport schemes to manage traffic and congestion appropriately. Several London Boroughs, including Sutton, Wandsworth and Ealing, have recently had their active travel funding cut for prematurely scrapping schemes like express cycle lanes and low traffic neighbourhoods. It’s reassuring to see the national government hold local authorities to account in this respect.

10. The Government should conduct a fundamental reform of transport appraisal, forecasts and modelling and the business cases that result from them to ensure they support and deliver transport policy objectives.

The TDP promises a ‘complete review’ of how to represent decarbonisation in appraisals and business cases. This is welcome and necessary.

The first step to improving how appraisals and business cases represent decarbonisation and a key metric to adopt should be ‘tonne years CO2 equivalent’, which captures the importance of early action compared to later action, which is essential for any accurate climate modelling.

We welcome the government’s revised approach to valuing greenhouse gas emissions in policy appraisal²² although questions remain about the differential treatment of traded and non-traded emissions (they ultimately cause the same damage).

The way the appraisal system values travel time savings should be a part of the promised review of appraisals and business cases.

In many transport projects, the emphasis on time saved by motorists underplays impacts on other road users who are often underrepresented in data and modelling. The review should attempt to redress this balance to properly model and value all modes of travel, especially sustainable modes, in the light of their potential contribution to decarbonisation. Multimodality, shared modes and substitution of physical travel by virtual alternatives –the current TAG guidance fits and serves none of these well.

A long-term issue of the transport appraisal system has been the focus on monetary value as the primary concern, with cost benefit analysis having too much sway on how decisions are made. The natural environment and climate change need to play a larger role without simplifying and reducing these dimensions to just monetary items.

The government should consider the case for introducing a pass/fail grade for projects with regards to associated carbon dioxide emissions and their role in meeting our climate ambitions.

Our current appraisal system also struggles to recognise behavioural change. Forecasts remain firmly linked to travel behaviour embedded in past trends, so projects that encourage a change to travel patterns are hard to assess and their prospects overlooked. This includes cases that support economically deprived parts of the population where transport options are limited. This speaks to a larger problem where business cases miss those who want to travel but can’t, often the poorest and most marginalised communities.

A review of the appraisal system must recognise the significant role behavioural change will play in our decarbonisation plans, and the need for both fundamental research on alternative value mechanisms and more practical research on adapting existing data and modelling tools.

Finally, the government must develop studies that provide confidence that the targets can be achieved. Individual measures are presented in the TDP without evidence that they support the targets and to what extent, while targets are introduced without indication as to whether any of the interventions, individually or combined, can achieve these.

Conclusion

The TDP is ambitious in its scope and impressive in many ways. It weaves together multiple previous policies into a comprehensive strategy that addresses how each mode of transport will reach net zero by 2050. There are areas of weakness, as we have explored and challenged throughout this response. Rather than fixate on what the TDP should have included, however, we look forward to COP26 and explore what the government should do in the lead up to the Climate Conference and beyond.

Before COP26, we would like to see the government commit to a review of the Road Investment Strategy and the transport appraisal and business case systems, as well as a review of our motoring tax and incentive system in the light of electrification and decarbonisation.

The forum of COP26 should be used to launch new commitments that build on the TDP, for example, we hope to see the government unveil a commitment to a universal EV charging point standard.

Looking beyond COP26, in the early years of the decade within which we must cut emissions to keep global warming within 1.5 – 2°C to avoid catastrophic climate change²³, action should concentrate on where the case for change is greatest.

Given the magnitude of emissions and the size of the error margin in the modelling for car (current emissions: 70MtCO2e) and aviation (current emissions: 40MtCO2e), the most immediate decarbonisation focus must be on reducing society’s dependence on those two modes and on cleaning them, rather than on the proposed rail or bus/coach interventions, which together add up to less fewer emissions (5MtCO2e) than the error margin in the forecasts for either aviation or car.

However, we would like to see recognition from the government that electrification of the vehicle fleet cannot be the sole answer, and that reducing journeys, particularly of private vehicles, is crucial.

Our detailed recommendations can be found throughout this document, are summarised in the Appendix and centre around:

• A careful approach to incentivising EVs
• Better integration of planning and transport
• Tackling regional disparities
• Sustained local authority funding and powers
• The need for fiscal (dis)incentives
• A fundamental review of appraisal practice

Contact

Main authors: Tom van Vuren (tom.van.vuren@veitchlister.com), Rose Yorke Barber (roseyorkebarber@gmail.com), Alex Bennett (alex@jfgcomms.co.uk) and Sarah McSharry (sarah@jfgcomms.co.uk).

Appendix: Summary of TPS recommendations

• We want to see more active travel funding committed each year.
• Increasing the number of overall charge points installed is a first step, but greater focus to ensure they are proportionately dispersed across the nation is critical to a fair and inclusive transition.
• The government should commit to a universal charging infrastructure standard, which we hope could be unveiled at COP26.
• If e-scooter schemes are successful, the DfT must accompany their introduction with strong marketing campaigns as well as safety awareness and training for riders to address these concerns, particularly surrounding privately owned e-scooters. Further effort is required in how government will support and regulate the safe deployment of e-scooters as an additional low-carbon alternative to the private car.
• We would welcome further detailed funding plans on modal shift, light or micro-mobility and embedded carbon in manufacture.
• The TDP is very light on “avoid” policies; we would like to see stronger and earlier action.
• Policies that focus on walking, cycling and public transport should be the priority to help achieve the necessary levels of traffic reduction (“shift”). It is also imperative that the accompanying funding is cost-effective at realising mode shift.
• The government should accompany investment in infrastructure with behaviour change campaigns that encourage a modal shift in response.
• Campaigns must stress how important it is to move to sustainable forms of transport in the immediate future. These campaigns must be sustained, not on/off activities linked to the success or otherwise of funding bids.
• The government should support last mile deliveries by active and micro-modes to see fewer emissions from the emerging increase in the amount of transport demand.
• The government should recognise the constantly changing nature of transport systems due to new technologies and encourage governing bodies to respond accordingly.
• A transport data strategy may be desirable, but we must make sure it is accessible to local authorities and all stakeholders in general, keeping in mind both the resource and IT challenges that local authorities often face.
• In implementing the TDP, the government should recognise the key differences felt throughout the UK between transport systems in rural, urban and suburban/peri-urban areas.
• Local authorities must have autonomy over the funding they receive from existing streams like the Levelling up fund, Active Travel Fund and City Region Sustainable Transport settlements.
• Spatial and transport planning remain disconnected for regional and local authorities outside London, and this should be addressed by government in future policy papers and strategies.
• Exact guidance on how to quantify or at least estimate carbon reductions, especially in the promotion and delivery of walking and cycling schemes where this is notoriously difficult, must be a part of the local authority toolkit mentioned above for authorities to put this into practice with any success.
• Future budgets should redress the imbalance in funding between roads and sustainable forms of transport.
• Following the example in Wales, the government should assess suspending new road building as an approach for England, or at least commit to a review of the current Road Investment Strategy.
• The government must support the use of the large rail estate in the UK, using it to fit solar film panels onto station infrastructure, depots, control centres and offices, to power the stations themselves and produce surplus sustainable energy.
• The government should recognise and address regional funding disparities as a priority.
  TPS challenges the effectiveness of a competitive bidding system which often concentrates funding to the largest authorities/metro mayors. The government should increase the amount of ring-fenced funding so that all local authorities can commit to and continue to invest it into transport decarbonisation projects.
• The TDP disappointingly makes no firm commitment to review the current fiscal incentives and disincentives in UK transport. This is a significant oversight of the decarbonisation plan, and the government should address how economic levers will be reviewed to not only achieve fiscal outcomes, but also support travel behaviour change.
• The government must consider re-introducing the fuel duty escalator, to realise immediate carbon reduction from road travel that is still mainly dependent on the internal combustion engine.
• The first step to improving how appraisals and business cases represent decarbonisation and a key metric to adopt should be ‘tonne years CO2 equivalent’, which captures the importance of early action compared to later action, which is essential for any accurate climate modelling.
• The way the appraisal system values travel time savings should be a part of the promised review of appraisals and business cases.
• The government should consider the case for introducing a pass/fail grade for projects with regards to associated carbon dioxide emissions and their role in meeting our climate ambitions.
• A review of the appraisal system must recognise the significant role behavioural change will play in our decarbonisation plans, and the need for both fundamental research on alternative value mechanisms and more practical research on adapting existing data and modelling tools.
• Given the magnitude of emissions and the size of the error margin in the modelling for car and aviation, the most immediate decarbonisation focus must be on reducing society’s dependence on those two modes and on cleaning them, rather than on the proposed rail or bus/coach interventions, which together add up to less fewer emissions than the error margin in the forecasts for either aviation or car.

Download: Department for Transport: Decarbonising Transport – A Be6er, Greener Britain

Transport Planning Society’s Full Response. Following the publica1on of the Transport Decarbonisa1on Plan (TDP) by the Department for Transport, the Transport Planning Society offers here its response.

---

1 https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/public-concern-about-climate-change-and-pollution-doubles-near-record-level
2 https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-11-08/a-modest-investment-with-major-dividends-cycling-culture-in-the-netherlands/ )
3 https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/decarbonising-transport-being-led-science 
4 https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html 
5 Lisa Hopkinson and Lynn Sloman, ‘Briefing More than electric cars; Why we need to reduce traffic to reach carbon targets, Transport for Quality of Life’, (2018)
6 Aasness M. and Odeck J. (2014) The explosion of electric vehicle use in Norway – environmental consciousness or economic incentives? Association for European Transport 2014 European Transport Conference, https://aetransport.org/public/downloads/8tuFk/4400-5400a2876cd3d.pdf 
7 https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/great-britain-track-periods-zero-carbon-electricity-2025 
8 https://www.zap-map.com/statistics/ 
9 https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/safe-micromobility_1.pdf 
10 https://www.itsinternational.com/its17/news/e-scooter-use-safer-cars-cities-itf-report 
11 https://www.creds.ac.uk/e-bikes-could-slash-transport-emissions-and-get-britons-back-to-work/ 
12 https://www.xpat.nl/expat-netherlands/getting-around/introduction-top-3-modes-transport-netherlands/   
13 https://www.parcelandpostaltechnologyinternational.com/news/delivery/urban-deliveries-expected-to-increase-carbon-emissions-by-30.html
14 https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/large-tired-and-tested-how-europes-cargo-bike-roll-out-is-delivering/
15 Institute for Government (2020) Local government funding in England,
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/local-government-funding-england
16 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/22/rail-line-in-hampshire-is-worlds-first-to-be-powered-by-solar-farm 
17 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996192 /Local_authority_revenue_expenditure_and_financing_in_England_2021_to_2022_budget.pdf 
18 Ibid.,
19 https://governmentbusiness.co.uk/news/10032020/ending-fuel-duty-freeze-could-treble-nhs-budget
20 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/roadtransportandairemissions/2019-09-16#greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-road-transport-make-up-around-a-fifth-of-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions 
21 Aasness M. and Odeck J. (2014) The explosion of electric vehicle use in Norway – environmental consciousness or economic incentives? Association for European Transport 2014 European Transport Conference, https://aetransport.org/public/downloads/8tuFk/4400-5400a2876cd3d.pdf  
22 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal/valuation-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-policy-appraisal-and-evaluation
23 IPCC, 2021 ‘Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis’

Transport planning as a profession distinct from engineering or economics is still very new.  The Transport Planning Professional qualification (TPP) was only established in 2008, at the same time as the TPS Professional Development Scheme.  As such there remains a lot of work to do to explain to a wider audience what transport planners do and why they should be listened to. 

Put simply the profession needs to be ambitious and influential – asserting its integrity and its authority as well as the diverse skills of its members.  Transport planning is complex but that is what makes it challenging and exciting.

After a lengthy process of consultation including the Member Survey and regional meetings,  TPS has set out some key principles for transport planning.  These fall into two key areas: first what transport planners should be seeking to achieve, and second how the profession should conduct itself while working towards those outcomes.  They are designed to be understandable and capable of influencing behaviour, not just for transport planners but for clients and the wider public.

To view the Principles of Transport Planning click here

To read Keith Buchan’s LTT article on how they were developed and why they matter click here

The  TPS is planning  to produce more targeted material explaining what transport planners do and using social as well as print media to reach a wider audience.  The principles will continue to be discussed as part of TPS activities, in particular the annual Transport Planning Day campaign.