Effective road and traffic management

Written evidence from the Transport Planning Society (ETM 40)

Introduction

1 The Transport Planning Society (TPS) has as its key aim: to facilitate, develop and promote best practice in transport planning and provide a focus for dialogue between all those engaged in it. In pursuing this TPS has regional and national branches, holds regular seminars and meetings, supports the Transport Planning Professional (TPP) qualification, and runs a bursary scheme for young professionals. The elected Board takes responsibility for policy development and planning the society’s core events programme.

2 This submission responds to the call for evidence on "effective road and traffic management, in the light of the Government’s decision not to introduce road pricing on existing roads (except in relation to HGVs)".

3 Our first observation is that this is potentially a huge subject area, and we have therefore attempted to structure our response to the specific questions in a framework which distinguishes between the demand for road traffic, and managing whatever traffic results from that demand. Road user charging (RUC), parking space management (for which there are even more options than RUC), and HGV user charging seek to manage demand, but of course the demand in the first place comes from the interaction between land use and human activity (the latter often closely linked to economic activity).

4 TPS thus always starts by recognising that land use and transport need to be seen as processes that need to take place at the same time and interactively. Strictly speaking, transport should always include communication, because much (though not all) of transport is designed to achieve this purpose.

5 While the argument that land and transport planning must be considered together is familiar, if still widely ignored, the inclusion of communication gives a clue to possible changes in future patterns of demand. For example there is clear evidence throughout the developed world that the "connected culture", especially the linking of smart mobile phones and the internet is having a major impact on young people’s attitudes towards owning cars and learning to drive. The percentage of younger people who hold full driver licences has fallen quite significantly over the last decade [1] . This is no longer a "right of passage" nor is owning a car so vital in terms of defining status [2] .

6 The second observation is that the way in which people pay for passenger transport, and how they perceive that cost, is a key factor which influences travel demand. Public transport is often charged at average cost per journey, although there is now a large bus constituency paying nothing for local travel, while the marginal cost of car use has traditionally been low, with high entry costs plus annual charges for ownership. The introduction of car clubs is now providing evidence that wider choices are made (usually with lower overall levels of car use) when the system of charging is closer to that for public transport. It will also influence the balance between physical movement and other means of communication.

7 A final general observation is that costs should not be defined simply as those currently represented in the market. Managing demand has major benefits in terms of reducing congestion, but also in terms of lower environmental damage, in particular greenhouse gas emissions. In passenger transport the former is likely to be more important. It is also surprising that little account is taken of how even the current changes in technology will mean that car engines are far less polluting in congested conditions in future, often zero. Pollution will become less associated with congestion and the arguments for cycling or walking for shorter journeys will have a greater emphasis on health benefits.

8 For freight, the failure of some of the heaviest goods vehicles to pay their infrastructure and environmental costs has distorted the bulk and the long distance freight markets for some considerable time. Congestion is also an issue, particularly since the methods for measuring the road space occupied by such vehicles do not distinguish fully between small HGVs and the largest articulated vehicles currently permitted on the UK’s roads. The anomaly which causes the largest non-UK HGVs to avoid their marginal road user costs has received wide publicity and underpins the Coalition commitment to Lorry Road User Charging (LRUC). The wider failure to meet such costs has received less attention so far.

9 There is thus an argument for changing the pattern of user charging as a first step, and for relating these better to those costs which are external to the users’ current internal costs and perceptions. Smart card ticketing is an interesting example of how even a modest move away from perceiving costs per journey for public transport (as well as convenience and boarding benefits) can change mode choice [3] .

10 Charging for external costs also has the advantage of producing short term revenue and creating better balance between demand and capacity in our transport networks.

11 We now consider the specific questions raised by the Committee.

Committee Questions

Q1 The prevalence and impact of traffic congestion and likely future trends

12 It remains true that the road network overall runs very far below its capacity, for example at night and in rural areas for much of the day. Congestion at specific places and times usually reflects an economic activity, of which the journey to work is the most obvious. It is interesting to observe that the very high costs often attributed to congestion do not result in more behavioural change, for example staggered or flexible working hours.

13 It is also important to distinguish between different types of congestion which are often merged into a single term.

14 One occurs where high levels of traffic on a road network may flow at speeds comparable to that at a lower level, but will be more vulnerable to disruption and loss of capacity. This is not just in terms of reported incidents such as traffic accidents. One vehicle can slow down slightly, or manoeuvre, and cause a major impact on hundreds of other vehicles where cars and lorries are travelling close together at speed [4] . In this sense disruption may not necessarily occur, but is much more likely.

15 Traffic engineers rely on a continuous relationship between higher levels of traffic and lower speeds – the speed flow curve. This can be confusing because lower speeds should mean less braking distance between vehicles (headway) and thus higher capacity despite lower speed. This is very important in answering the Committee’s later question on intelligent traffic management. It should be noted, however, that the benefits of managing and reducing speed can show up poorly in appraisal because it may lower the theoretical average speed used in most modelling. What it can do is increase capacity and reliability (resilience).

16 The final stage of a speed flow curve is where traffic becomes so high that flow breaks down in an irregular manner, and instead of higher flows leading to lower speeds, both flow and speed fall together. The speed flow curve is thus a horizontal U shape. This is what most people recognise as serious congestion, with stop start conditions, severe delays and unpredictable journey times. The latter have become particularly important for the road freight industry.

17 As stated earlier, congestion is most likely where economic activity is high, and thus the potential costs are high. The impact is not just to cause longer journey times on average, but to make them less predictable. Future congestion trends will rely on the extent to which:

· transport and land use planning are undertaken together, rather than one depending on the other

· non-RUC methods of demand management (including land use guidance such as limits on parking provision) are introduced, both by local and central Government

· roads are actively managed, including speed, entry flows and accidents.

Q2 The extent to which the Government and local authorities should intervene to alleviate congestion and the best means of doing so

18 Given the answer above, congestion can be mitigated, although it is unlikely to be eliminated. Intervention can thus be justified, although in a country with a very extensive road network (as Eddington recognised) this requires demand management as well as traffic flow management.

19 If there is a criticism of the pure economic approach to demand management represented by RUC, it is that more change could be achieved more quickly using other, often cheaper, methods, and that such change could be made in a more equitable manner. This is typified by the push-pull approach (which is probably now called nudging) where one type of behaviour is made a bit less attractive at the same time as another is made a bit more attractive. The combined effect is much stronger than the two actions undertaken separately. The successful combination of parking management and pricing with travel planning was documented in DfT research in 2002 and confirmed by many studies since.

20 There is one important aspect to such policies which are often locally based. It is that there has to be a national framework for any push type polices otherwise there will be a so called "rush to the bottom" in terms of authorities seeking to attract new development. This is clear in terms of parking standards, and was one of the key reasons for setting maximum standards in planning guidance such as PPG13. It should be noted that these were intended to be further strengthened through Regional Transport Strategies. This need for a clear framework also applies to more comprehensive area wide parking management, including pricing. In this context the Society is working with other professional bodies in the Green Light Group, which has been considering the potential for schemes which guide parking provision of all types, and manage it, by price and other means, across a wider area.

21 Given the Government’s desire to reduce congestion, and its rejection of a national RUC scheme, it is crucial that legislative obstacles to such area parking plans are removed. It would, however, be possible to make them conditional on other policies, such as travel planning, to produce the push-pull effect. Charges would create funds for travel planning and transitional costs, such as priority measures or short term public transport support.

22 In terms of last summer’s member survey, it is interesting to note that for local charging schemes with a demand management element, a charge placed on all parking, including retail, was virtually as high as workplace parking: 3.27 compared to 3.30 (both out of a maximum score of 5).

Q3 The extent to which road user culture and behaviour undermines effective traffic management, including the relevance to today’s road users of the Highway Code

23 This is a very specific matter on which we have not conducted our own research and do not wish to comment.

Q4 Intelligent traffic management schemes, such as the scheme which has operated on the M42, and their impact on congestion and journey times

24 Given the analysis in paragraphs 14 to 17 above on the nature of congestion and demand management, the Society supports this approach as a contribution to improving capacity, but just as importantly, reliability. It probably has lower risks in terms of traffic generation or diversion, although we would like to see this monitored and properly researched as schemes are implemented.

Q5 The effectiveness of legislative provisions for road management under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004

25 While supporting the responsibilities on local authorities to manage road networks, including use by utility companies, we would wish to see a greater emphasis on:

· the responsibility to assist all traffic, including those on foot or cycle [5]

· the need to manage demand as well as ensure "expeditious movement of traffic"

· wider financial powers to manage demand through charging schemes other than RUC (see answer to question 2 above).

26 In last summer’s member survey their priorities for transport spending placed far greater emphasis on active management of the trunk road network (25.4%) than expanding it (8.6%). This of course reflects the fact that building new capacity has less and less impact as the base network increases in size and can even be counter productive. This helps to explain why mature networks tend to be managed rather than expanded.

Q6 The impact of bus lanes and other aspects of road layout

27 This is potentially another very extensive subject. We wish to limit our evidence to two key points.

28 The first is that the quality, inventiveness and level of response to local conditions and the knowledge of local people is crucial to successful bus lanes, cycle or walking schemes, and changes to junction layouts. In terms of trunk road signing and design this is often of a high technical standard. We would wish to see included a greater emphasis on informing the driver and encouraging careful and considerate behaviour within the maximum speed limit and lower as required by driving conditions. Given the remit of the Society, it would be wrong not to point out the importance of maintaining and developing the highest possible level of skills in the transport planning and engineering professions at local and national level.

29 The second is that the provision of bus lanes in particular has seen major advances in the past few years. A route based approach rather than addressing congestion "hot spots" has enabled planners to prioritise buses with lower impact on general traffic, for example through queue relocation and distributing traffic more evenly. In fact, this can have benefits for other road users, including car users and pedestrians. It is important that these techniques are fully understood by local people as well as professionals and this is an area where more work is required. It is also the case that it is hard to reflect modern bus priority in road network models, and this may be undermining their performance when it comes to appraisal. This is another area we have identified where further work is needed.

Overall Conclusions

30 If the Government wishes to tackle congestion without Road User Charging it must undertake a range of actions.

· This should start by ensuring that land use planning fully takes into account the long and short term effects on transport demand. This is widely recognised as important but still not implemented in terms of decision making "on the ground".

· In the immediate future the most effective approach would be comprehensive area parking control and charging for all types not just at the workplace.

· This must be combined with a pro-active and well funded travel plan covering at least the same area as the parking control.

· It is important that such areas do not simply control urban centres, but a wider catchment, to avoid damaging conflicts between such centres and out of town developments.

· This will help to define and then support a range of initiatives which may include priority measures for public transport, walking and cycling. However these should follow on from the results of the travel plan and not seek to pre-empt it.

· Transport authorities are best placed to develop these plans and they could be funded from parking charges.

31 National Government will, however, need to define a clear framework to avoid one local authority creating a context in which introducing demand management in other authorities becomes politically impossible. In this sense the apparent relaxation of national parking standards sends all the wrong messages.

 Annex

Figure referred to in paragraph 5 above

Table 0201 from the National Travel Survey

February 2011