Effective road and traffic management

1.1 Much of the discussion and debate on congestion focuses on congestion on routes between the main cities (the strategic network of motorways and trunk roads). As almost 90% of congestion is in towns and cities, widening these roads will simply move traffic into already-congested urban areas just that little bit faster. [2] Studies show that people are far more annoyed by urban traffic than by hold-ups on the motorways. [3]

1.2 If account is only taken of long-distance traffic, the solutions to congestion can appear very limited; with transport plans recommending extensive road building programmes, which just generate traffic and create more congestion. But if analysis is widened to include all those shorter trips and the cities at either end, then a very different pattern appears.

1.3 This is because the range of options is far greater when we consider the full range of journeys. For instance, there are many trips which use sections of the M1 and M6 for which alternatives are – or could be – available. Government studies over the past few years have repeatedly found that it is possible to reduce congestion on the motorways by managing demand in urban areas. [4]

1.4 It is not just the biggest cities which need attention: there are plenty of smaller hot spots where targeted programmes could reduce congestion without the need for costly, and ultimately futile, road building. Improving public transport or providing workplace or school travel plans in areas surrounding heavily congested junctions can have a dramatic impact on journey times – and cost far less than building roads.

1.5 Increasing the capacity of the strategic road network also adds to traffic impacts on other roads, including in urban areas. Transport for London’s report on transport trends in the capital over the past ten years [5] shows this in respect to the M25. Although the number of cars entering the capital had been rising steadily, it rose significantly in the late 1980s as sections of the M25 were opened to the public.

1.6 The 'central London cordon' was also affected by the M25, peaking in 1989, before remaining roughly steady throughout the 1990s. Car trips then fell with the introduction of the Congestion Charge in 2003 and commensurate improvements to public transport. Between 2000 and 2009, car traffic entering central London fell 33%, as people left their cars at home and chose instead to walk, cycle or use public transport.

1.7 Away from the strategic road network, many by-pass schemes put forward to relieve congestion simply move the congestion further down the road, as the Highways Agency’s own reports on post-opening project evaluation suggest. [6]

1.8 Future transport trends also assume that traffic will continue to grow at similar rates to that observed over recent decades. However, there are a number of trends, which may start to be observable already, which suggest that there will be significant changes. Firstly, energy prices will rise, making travel more expensive (as we can already see with rises in fuel prices). This will also have a knock on effect in the long-term as the cost of transporting food or many goods around will outweigh the savings from using foreign labour.

1.9 Secondly, technology is likely to reduce the demand for much travel, especially long-distance business trips as teleconferencing becomes normalised.

1.10 And thirdly, the need to reduce carbon will reinforce both these trends, particularly as early reductions in carbon will have greater impact and avoid the need for much more severe cuts further down the line. The impact of, for instance, electric vehicles on reductions in carbon will take longer to have an impact.

1.11 This fundamental change in trends may already be starting to become apparent with a de-coupling of economic growth from traffic growth.

1.12 Professor Phil Goodwin has suggested that we may be seeing a "peak car" phenomenon with, in the first instance, positive feedback mechanisms now reinforcing the trend away from increased trips by car in urban areas (as suggested by the recent Travel in London report from Transport for London [7] ).

1.13 However, forecasts based on past growth matched against expected future rises in income are used the basis for justifying new road building schemes. Many of these schemes’ benefits derive from comparing the scheme with a "do-minimum" scenario based on forecast traffic growth with no other interventions. The time-saving benefits are therefore not actual improvements over current journey times but instead are the difference between worse times expected with the scheme and the "nightmare" scenario. These benefits therefore rely on the expectation traffic levels will continue to rise year on year over the 60 year span of the appraisal period.

2. Government and local authority interventions to alleviate congestion

2.1 Although we suggest above that long-term rising demand for car use is likely to fall, there are still the impacts of current congestion in the short- to medium-term. Although national road pricing may be off the agenda in this Parliament, local authorities can look to a range of demand management measures, particularly around parking. This can include parking standards (particularly for workplace and shopping parking), the pricing of parking and new measures like workplace parking levies.

2.2 Although the Department for Transport’s business plan includes a goal to "tackle carbon and congestion on our roads", the suggested actions to deliver on the congestion side of this are very limited, mainly focussed on dealing with incidents and introducing a lorry road user charging scheme (which does not appear to be likely to lead to more efficient freight networks if, as seems likely, it is merely a time based scheme).

2.3 There are however a range of measures that the Government could progress to tackle congestion and the causes of congestion. Based on the report on the strategic road network from Phil Goodwin, we recommended in 2009 that the Government should:

· Take account of shorter trips and cities and their impact on the major road network when carrying out its transport corridor studies

· Produce wide-ranging packages of solutions, including projects to manage demand for road space in towns and cities, and encourage local authorities to implement them

· Earmark a proportion of transport spending for revenue programmes which would reduce the need for to build additional infrastructure

2.4 Additionally we suggested that the Government should introduce measures to tackle motorway congestion recommended in official studies, including:

· Rolling out ‘smarter choices’ programmes in the surrounding towns and cities, such as travel planning, information, marketing and advice, so that people can make informed decisions about how they travel

· Improving infrastructure and support for public transport, walking and cycling

· Adjusting the cost of different modes of transport to encourage people to walk, cycle or take public transport

· Reallocating road space to give priority to the most efficient, productive or socially needy road users

· Rolling out real-time information and control systems including dynamic traffic control (e.g. ‘green wave’ systems and intelligent traffic lights)

· Improving land-use planning so that essential services are closer to where people live and work, eliminating the need for long journeys on already busy roads

· Increasing support for advanced telecommunications systems, to help people work from home, shop online, meet via video-conferencing and improve the way councils manage transport systems

2.5 The main area of progress following from these recommendations is the Government’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund, particularly if local authorities bids include smarter choices / behaviour change programmes. The evidence from the Sustainable Travel Towns shows that these programmes can have major benefits in reducing traffic, as well as cutting CO2. People’s choices about travel can change and programmes to provide information and advice can deliver these changes in behaviour.

2.6 The Department should also look at the opportunities for behaviour change for medium-distance trips, for instance through more roll-out of workplace travel plans, particularly to cover business travel and longer-distance commuting , development of the coach network and better integration of rail stations with walking, cycling and other forms of public transport . [8]

2.7 Leisure travel plans also offer opportunities to address medium- and longer-distance travel. Ensuring that good public transport is available in, for instance, national parks will be important. The cuts in bus funding threaten to reinforce car travel as the default for accessing leisure facilities and rural tourism.

2.8 The Alternatives to Travel work by the Department for Transport also offers opportunities to reduce traffic, particularly from business travel and commuting. However, it is important that the alternatives to travel work programme includes the role of spatial planning, and the DfT and Department for Communities and Local Government should work together to address this as a principle to be embedded in the new national planning policy framework.

2.9 Changes to national planning policy and local plans (including neighbourhood plans) could have a significant impact on traffic levels , either to increase or reduce traffic . For instance allowing t he development of out of town shopping centres in the 1980s was accompanied by large increases in traffic levels which embedded car use as the default option . This weakened alternative transport modes which became less viable as usage dropped and local shops and services declined with the increase in the number of our of town retal centres (accompanied by large free car parks) .

2.10 The Masterplanning Checklist published by Campaign for Better Transport was a review of literature and showed that planning policy can be used to influence traffic. [9] The Commission for Integrated Transport’s Planning for Sustainable Travel (using the National Travel Survey dataset) also showed how higher density, larger settlement size and accessibility to key services are all associated with lower car use. [10]

2.11 It is also important to lock in benefits by reallocating road space to more sustainable modes (inc walking and cycling) which can enable continued mode shift and can also support local retail economies as pedestrians, cyclists and bus users have all been found to spend more money in shopping areas in our towns and cities across the UK compared to those who travelled by car.

3. Intelligent traffic management schemes

3.1 Intelligent traffic systems can be a useful part of managing the motorway and trunk road network and are more effective than road widening schemes. Managing speed is an essential part of this. Alongside hard shoulder running, the Highways Agency should also look at opportunities for dedicated lanes for buses and coaches, and potentially car share/high occupancy vehicle lanes.

4. The impact of bus lanes

4.1 Bus lanes can help as part of a package of measures to reduce congestion, mainly through modal shift but also, as in the case of the M4 bus lane, they may help smooth traffic flow. Local authorities should look to build wider support for bus lanes, particularly through working with operators to grow bus usage through affordable fares and frequent services. Bus lanes are not the only bus priority measure and giving buses priority at traffic junctions should also be used.

4.2 The M4 bus lane is a particular example which can help as part of overall traffic management. The M4 bus lane opened in 1999, and was introduced as a way of reducing delays caused by the Brentford flyover at Chiswick. The flyover narrows to two lanes from three, so highways engineers decided to move the point where traffic had to merge back to junction 3. The speed limit was also lowered to 40mph.

4.3 One year after it opened, the Transport Research Laboratory looked at the bus lane and compared journey times before and after it opened. Their findings showed how effective the bus lane was at cutting peak-time congestion.

4.4 Before the bus lane opened, a queue formed where the M4 narrowed from three lanes to two, with drivers queueing for up to ten minutes. After the bus lane opened, the queueing behaviour was replaced by intermittent stop-start driving behaviour (shockwaves), with car drivers typically stopping once or twice as they travel towards the elevated section, but otherwise travelling faster than before. It is this change in behaviour that enables both cars and buses to benefit from the bus lane scheme.

4.5 Despite claims that the bus lane was always empty, TRL found that "7% of the vehicles on the M4 into London use the bus lane, but they contain 21% of the people, including drivers." One in five people entering London via the M4 did so via the bus lane.

January 2011