The challenges of using evidence-based approaches to make effective transport policy

We know that walking and cycling are great ways to keep fit and prevent harmful pollution. Yet we also know that, for a variety of reasons, people aren’t always keen on them as a means of getting around. Sustrans is the charity that’s making it easier for people to walk and cycle. We're working with families, communities, policy-makers and partner organisations across the UK to encourage active travel.

We pride ourselves on basing our activities in support of active travel on a solid evidence base. We were very proud to have our work featured in a recent UN report as an example of good practice at the science-policy interface. But the connection between evidence, policy, and investment decisions in transport is sometimes hard to fathom.

Despite the strength of evidence on the benefits associated with walking and cycling (primarily relating to public health benefits of increased physical activity, but also in other areas such as reduced emissions, and improved air quality), it remains challenging to secure significant investment in active travel. The balance of policy and investment is heavily skewed towards ‘big infrastructure’ and technological innovation.

Some of the constraints that seem to dictate this poor translation of evidence into practice include: i) the limitations of cost–benefit analysis mechanisms; ii) too much faith in technological quick-fixes; and iii) the adherence to predict and provide policies. These constraints result in funding decisions such as a £15 billion Road Investment Strategy in England, whilst local streets receive very little funding for infrastructure that makes them better spaces for people to use.

In theory, UK transport investment decisions are made on the basis of economic appraisal and cost-benefit analysis. Newly published research on cost benefit analysis is clear about the gaps. Weaknesses in forecasting, disregard for benefit distribution and equity, and the application of dubious techniques (for example, valuing small time savings, and discounting) all bring into question the veracity of an approach that works within the realms of similar projects (for example, comparing one road scheme with another road scheme). But how does one treat a local walking and cycling network in relation to a road building scheme in this context?

The misplaced optimism in the technological quick-fixes of the future is also an area where huge evidence disconnects can be observed. A big part of the emphasis on investment in transport research and development is focussed on, for example:

• Electric vehicles – without recognition that on the one hand carbon emissions from energy generation are displaced (from the tailpipe to the power station chimney) rather than eliminated, and on the other hand 45% of particulate matter from traffic comes from brake and tyre wear (as distinct from fuel combustion), so poor air quality remains an issue.
• Autonomous vehicles – despite the lack of any evidence about either consumer demand or the impact on traffic patterns.
• 'Mobility-as-a-service’ provision – with scant regard for the fact that for many companies entering the market are doing so with the object of consumer data harvesting, rather than through any concern about mobility and accessibility.

The major risk is that we lose sight of what might already be possible. A new paper from a network of European cities and regions cooperating for innovative transport solutions on the future for autonomous vehicles expresses concern about the social distribution of impacts, and also concludes that  “if a transport authority wishes to pave the way for fewer private vehicles, bold planning decisions could already be made today to accelerate the uptake and dependence on public transport, cycling, walking.”

The adherence to predict and provide policies is a further misguided constraint in transport planning. In crudest terms, we look at past travel demand patterns, and we assume that the future will need ‘more of that’. This disregards any possibility of change, whether it be travel demand management, changing lifestyle patterns (for example, fewer younger people than ever own cars or even driving licenses), or even technological shift. The current Roads Investment Strategy does not reflect Government policies on environment and public health, does not align with changing societal patterns, and largely ignores the possible future automation of the fleet. A recently published research paper goes so far as to question whether continued adherence to predict and provide reveals an underlying, if unstated “real policy of car provision … and is the result of the influence of a powerful roads industry lobby”, whilst also noting that road building has little impact on economic activity, and cannot be relied on to kick-start the UK economy.

The net effect of these constraints is an evidence-policy-investment disconnect.

This disconnect in transport policy plays out very emphatically in air quality, where contradictions across policy areas introduce the risk of overall policy failure: pollution policies are not effectively integrated; transport policies either disregard air quality implications or are too heavily focussed on distant-future technology-led solutions; and health policies are too heavily focussed on remedial ‘cure’ work, rather than prevention. The continued investment in road ‘improvement’ does not seem to align well with other aspects of policy on air quality.

These contradictions need to be resolved if we are to have a coherent transport strategy. The effective application of evidence is crucial in enabling this to happen. Sustrans believes that active travel should lie at the heart of that transport strategy.

Dr Andy Cope is the Director of Insight at Sustrans

Pedal power: why cycling should be at the centre of Government thinking

The Government is being taken to court yet again over its air quality plans. Environmental lawyers Client Earth have previously defeated both of the Government’s previous attempts at an air quality strategy. This third version has been reduced in scope to an ‘Air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide’, pending a fuller air quality strategy next year. Yet it too has been roundly criticised by transport planners, health professionals, environmentalists, and local authorities alike.

Everyone now agrees that previous governments’ support for diesel vehicles was a terrible mistake. We traded off marginal reductions in greenhouse gas emissions against increases in lethal pollutants. But action on pollution also needs to be linked to other issues too. A 2009 Cabinet Office report, on the costs of transport in English urban areas, found that the economic costs of air quality, congestion, road casualties and physical inactivity were all of a similar magnitude: around £10 billion annually.

Based on this evidence, surely it makes sense to invest in policies that tackle all of these costs by addressing their common cause: too much motor traffic. Transport planners since the 1960s have acted as if congestion was their number one challenge, with the other issues being secondary. Now we risk taking a similarly myopic view of air pollution, missing the bigger picture. Demonising diesels is now commonplace, with electric vehicles being seen as an environmental saviour. They are undoubtedly beneficial both for air quality and the climate – yet relying purely on electric vehicles would still leave us with congested and dangerous streets.

Investing in cycling and walking is, by contrast, a hugely cost-effective solution to all of these problems. Enabling people of all ages and abilities – young and old alike – to get around safely on foot or by bike would not only civilise our streets but would also halt the rise of obesity, type-two diabetes and other inactivity-related conditions, with all their human and economic costs.

But don’t cycle facilities cause congestion and pollution? After all, that’s what the papers keep saying!

Well, that might be true if you put your blinkers on and look only at the immediate impacts on motor vehicle journey times specifically along a street where new protected cycle lanes have just been built. But the opposite is true if you look at the wider road network, and consider the efficient movement of people (rather than motor vehicles), particularly in the longer term. A typical lane of a typical road can carry 2,000 cars per hour, or 14,000 bicycles. Reallocating motor vehicle space as space for cycling enables a lot more people to get from A to B efficiently, and reduces the amount of congestion and pollution they create throughout the rest of their journey. This benefit can be expected to easily outweigh the additional congestion faced by those who continue driving along the road which now has less motor vehicle capacity. London’s cycle superhighways are already carrying a lot more people than they could possibly have done under their previous configuration.

Moreover, this benefit is set to grow. People and businesses will continue adapting to changes in travel times, switching to the most efficient means of getting around. But the really big benefits come from creating an increasingly comprehensive cycle network. So far we only have a few disconnected lanes here and there. It will increase massively as our towns and cities start developing comprehensive cycle networks – as is the norm in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands.

So, what does the Government need to do to maximise the air quality and other benefits of cycling?

For one, it should require local authorities to draw up a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) as part of every Clean Air Zone. The Government’s recommended approach to planning comprehensive walking and cycling networks is a huge leap forward from our current tendency to provide disconnected cycle facilities where there happens to be a bit of spare space and a bit of spare cash. Yet at present, English local authorities are under no obligation to follow this guidance (unlike their Welsh counterparts), nor is there any financial support or incentives for those who do so. Changing this has to be part of the Government’s wider air pollution strategy.

It also needs to shift the balance of funding from inter-urban road schemes to healthy, efficient and sustainable local transport solutions. The conventional argument for road-building is that it supposedly benefits the economy. Yet this claim has been repeatedly questioned by leading transport academics. And it ignores the adverse economic impacts of a car-dominated transport system on the economies of our urban areas – as quantified in the Cabinet Office report mentioned earlier. Local authorities, combined authorities and ‘metro-mayors’ of all political persuasions are eager to invest in high-quality walking and cycling provision, recognising how this could improve the health of their streets, their residents and the local economy. A shift in funding would enable them to do so, yielding huge benefits.

Alongside this, the Government should coordinate a national framework for urban road user charging schemes, to cover both congestion and pollution impacts. The main reason why the Government keeps losing legal battles over air quality is because of its reluctance to support road user charging, despite having identified it as the most effective measure for tackling air pollution in the “shortest possible time” (as required by law). Instead, the Government has left councils not only to make the political justification for road user charging, but also to work out the charging processes and technologies. It claims that air pollution is a local problem. Yet surely a problem in over 200 locations needs to be seen as a national problem! In the name of efficiency, it needs to provide a national lead on tackling air pollution and congestion. There are huge economic, environmental, health and quality of life benefits to be gained from doing so.

The third is to back this up with financial incentives not only for people to trade in old diesel cars, but also for motor vehicle manufacturers to stop selling them. A scrappage scheme could be funded by a short-term increase in vehicle excise duty for the dirtiest motor vehicles.

Over time though, the financial signals need to shift towards reducing the use (rather than merely the ownership) of motor vehicles – starting in the most congested and polluted areas, but progressively tackling their energy and climate impacts too. Simply electrifying the vehicle fleet, without reducing our use of motor vehicles, would increase our energy demand, which would need to be met from renewables if reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are to be maximised. It could also massively reduce Treasury revenues – by between £9 billion and £23 billion, according to one estimate. There has to be a clear and transparent link between charging that deters the use of dirty and inefficient transport, and investment in efficient, healthy and clean alternatives such as walking and cycling.

Roger Geffen is the Policy Director at Cycling UK

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily shared by Bright Blue