ENGLAND’S NATIONAL TRANSPORT STRATEGY

Have your say!

The Government is developing a “vision-led” Integrated National Transport Strategy (INTS) for England, to be issued later in 2025. It has put out a ‘call for ideas’, and has asked members of the public to respond by 20th February.

If you haven’t already done so, we suggest the first thing you do is email your MP – we’ve made this really quick and easy! Urge them to support a Strategy whose central ‘vision’ is a future where we are less dependent on cars, vans and lorries, thanks to a shift in transport investment towards supporting public, shared and community transport and active travel, and repairing our existing streets and paths.

Having done that though, we’d strongly encourage you to spend a bit more time responding to the ‘call for ideas’ itself. We’ve provided suggestions below on how you might answer the Government’s questions.

Why this is important

Domestic transport now accounts for 28% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions (not including international aviation and shipping), with most of this coming from road transport. This makes transport the UK economy’s highest-emitting sector, having failed to make the cuts seen in other sectors (notably energy). Increases in road traffic (particularly van traffic) and, more recently, increases in vehicle size have offset the benefits of more fuel-efficient engines.

Other costs of our over-dependence on motor-vehicles include:

Motor traffic in Britain has almost doubled since 1980 and has risen 10-fold since 1950. Worse still, the Department for Transport’s future projections for England and Wales suggest that it could rise by up to 54% more by 2060. This would be disastrous in so many ways – for the economy, for our health and well-being, for the local and global environment.

The Scottish and Welsh Governments have both adopted National Transport Strategies with explicit aims to reduce motor traffic. Scotland has set a target to reduce car-kilometres travelled by 20% by 2030. This is in line with what several reports have said is needed for surface transport to play its part in meeting the UK’s legally-binding carbon budgets. Wales has a similar, but slightly less ambitious target.

By contrast, England has no overall transport strategy and has never had targets to restrain motor traffic growth, let alone to reduce it. The Government’s promise of a “vision-led” Integrated National Transport Strategy (INTS) is therefore a crucial opportunity for you to play your part in putting this right, and to shape the transport funding decisions that the Chancellor will make in her Spending Review, to be announced in June.

How the ‘call for ideas’ is structured & how to respond

The Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) call for ideas sets different questions for members of the public, people who work in the transport sector and for organisations. This webpage offers suggestions of points you may want to make in response to the questions either for groups or for members of the public who do not work in transport.

Questions 1 and 2 start by asking whether you are responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation, and whether you are commenting as someone who works in transport. Depending on your response, you will then be asked some questions about yourself (your age, gender, ethnicity, any disabilities, what part of the UK you live etc) or the size and type of your organisation.

However, for individuals who do not work in transport, the questions that follow need a bit of explanation. From Q12 onwards, you will be asked groups of questions about how often you use various transport modes, with subsequent questions in the group asking what improvements you would want to see.

Our suggestions for individuals therefore start with Q12, though our first suggested responses are for either Q13 or Q14, depending on your answer to Q12. This pattern then repeats for the following groups of questions.

Suggested Answers for Individuals

The Government’s online form asks you for a multiple choice answer to Q12. It will then invite to answer either Q13 or Q14, depending on your response to Q12. Whichever you answer, we suggest making the following points:

  • Using our roads would be safer, pleasanter and less frustrating for everyone if more road-space was allocated to space-efficient forms of transport, such as walking, cycling, buses and trams. Providing people with better choices would reduce the number of people needing to drive. That in turn would create better conditions for those for whom driving would still be essential.
  • Reducing speed limits would also make it easier for people to get around by walking, wheeling (i.e. using non-motorised or low-speed mobility aids) or cycling.
  • A wider range of options is particularly important for people who cannot drive or prefer not to, for whatever reason – including children, many younger or older people, people on lower incomes and many people with health conditions or disabilities which make driving difficult or impossible.
  • More car-sharing or ride-sharing schemes would enable people to use cars when needed without having to own them. This in turn would save people money as well as reducing car-dependence.

As with the first group of questions, the Government’s online form starts by asking you for a multiple choice answer to Q15, then invites you to answer either Q16 or Q17. Whichever you answer, we suggest making the following points:

  • There need to be more services – i.e. more routes, more stations or stops, and higher frequency services, including off-peak and weekend services.
  • Using public transport needs to be cheaper. Too often it is cheaper to drive, especially for a family or other small group travelling together.
  • Fares need to be easier to understand.
  • Services need to be more reliable, with fewer services running late or being cancelled.
  • Train timetables need to be better integrated, including with bus and other public transport connections.
  • It needs to be easier to combine train, tram or other rail-based transport with walking, wheeling and cycling. There needs to be convenient cycle parking and cycle hire facilities at stations. There should be more and better-designed spaces for wheelchairs and for pedal-cycles on trains, trams and other rail vehicles, including for non-standard pedal cycles used as mobility aids. For longer-distance train services on which seats can be reserved, it should be easier to also reserve cycle or wheelchair spaces when buying an advance ticket, or in real time shortly before departure.
  • It needs to be easier to buy single tickets for multi-stage transport journeys.
  • Stations and stops need to be accessible, with step-free access increasingly becoming the norm.
  • There needs to be better information about public transport services, including (i) the fares and booking processes for journeys that combine more than one transport mode, (ii) real-time information about services – both online and at stations, stops or interchanges – particularly when disruption or delays are occurring, including alternative options; and (iii) information and support for people travelling with wheelchairs or pedal cycles.

As with the previous groups, you will be asked to answer Q19 or Q20, depending on your multiple choice answer to Q18. Either way, we suggest making the following points in response:

  • There need to be more services – i.e. more routes, more stations or stops, and higher frequency services, including off-peak and weekend services.
  • Using public transport needs to be cheaper. Too often it is cheaper to drive, especially for a family or other small group travelling together.
  • Fares need to be easier to understand.
  • Services need to be more reliable – fewer services running late or being cancelled.
  • Timetables need to be better integrated, including rail and other public transport connections.
  • It needs to be easier to combine the use of buses or coaches with walking, wheeling and cycling. There should be convenient cycle parking and cycle hire facilities at public transport interchanges. There needs to be more and better provision for wheelchairs and for pedal-cycles on buses and coaches, including for non-standard pedal cycles used as mobility aids. For longer-distance coach services on which seats can be reserved, it should be easier to also reserve cycle or wheelchair spaces at the same time as buying an advance ticket, or in real time shortly before departure.
  • It needs to be easier to buy single tickets for multi-stage journeys.
  • Stops and interchanges need to be accessible, with step-free access becoming increasingly normal.
  • There needs to be better information about public transport services, including (i) the fares and booking processes for journeys that combine more than one transport mode, (ii) real-time information about services – both online and at stops or interchanges – particularly when disruption or delays are occurring, including alternative options; and (iii) information and support for people travelling with wheelchairs or pedal cycles.
As with the previous groups, you will be asked to answer Q22 or Q23, depending on your multiple choice answer to Q21. Either way, we suggest making the following points in response:
  • To enable more people to cycle – and a wider range of people – the key thing is to focus on creating conditions where people of all ages and abilities can cycle without fear. Depending on the type of road or street, this will involve EITHER reducing motor traffic volumes and/or speeds to a level where anyone can cycle without fear; OR creating protected cycle facilities alongside faster or busier main roads, or following alternative routes that are at least as quick and convenient as the main road would be.
  • It means that 20mph should be the ‘default’ speed limit for built-up streets, with 40mph or lower limits being the norm for rural single-carriageways. Local authorities would be free to set higher limits for faster and/or busier main roads, but these would require separate cycle provision.
  • Safe provision is particularly important where cycle users have to cross major roads or junctions.
  • Measures to reduce motor vehicle volumes in specific locations can play a valuable role in enabling more people to cycle. These measures can include: (i) vehicle-restricted areas in town or city centres, from which motor vehicles are restricted or banned altogether (but possibly only at certain times of day); (ii) Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, where motorised through-traffic is filtered out from residential streets using bollards, planters or enforcement cameras; or (iii) school streets, where motor vehicles are forbidden at school drop-off and pick-up times.
  • Cycle provision should be planned as a network, not disjointed individual facilities.
  • Cyclists and scooter users need good, well-maintained surfaces.
  • Cyclists and scooter users need good route signing and way-finding provision.
  • Cycling needs to be better integrated with public transport – see responses to Q17 and Q20.
  • Cycle provision needs to cater for disabled (as well as non-disabled) cycle users, including the use of non-standard pedal cycles.
  • Cycle parking should be provided at key destinations, including homes, schools and colleges, workplaces, high streets and shopping centres, hospitals and healthcare facilities, leisure facilities, stations and interchanges etc. It should be accessible, clearly signed, sheltered and secure. It should include provision for parking non-standard pedal cycles.

[The online form explains that “‘Wheeling’ includes using a wheelchair, powered wheelchair, mobility scooter or rollator.” Here are some points you may want to make in response] 

  • The street environment should be accessible to all, including people with visual, movement and learning disabilities.
  • Pavements should be wide enough for two push-chairs or wheel-chairs to pass, free of obstructions and with smooth surfaces. Dropped kerbs and tactile surfaces should be provided where needed.
  • There should be safe and convenient crossings of major roads and at junctions – crossings of minor roads and driveways should be designed to indicate clear priority to pedestrians, while crossings of more major roads should have either zebra or signalised crossings.
  • There should be good signing to help people navigate.
  • The surroundings should be pleasant and feel safe, with design features that provide visual interest, places to rest and socialise, planting, trees and other sources of shade, and clean air.
  • On most urban streets and rural lanes, motor traffic volumes and speeds should be kept low, with 20mph being the normal speed limit for most built-up streets (including villages) and 40mph or less being the limit for non-built-up minor lanes. On roads with higher traffic volumes or speed limits, it is even more important to provide adequate pavements and crossing facilities.

Freight is often neglected in transport strategies. Freight is clearly important but road-freight has obvious adverse impacts on road safety, the local and global environment and people’s quality of life. There is a huge need to invest in rail freight facilities, and in edge-of-town facilities where large lorries can transfer their loads to smaller and safer urban delivery vehicles, including cargo-bikes, for the ‘last mile’ of their journeys.

The Government’s online form will invite you to give multiple choice answers to Q27 and Q28. We then suggest making the following points in answer to Q29:
  • Signing and route-finding information.
  • Information about accessibility, of streets, of stations and other public transport facilities and services.
  • Inter-modal options e.g. combining cycle with rail travel – pricing, how to book through tickets and reserve cycle or wheelchair spaces on rail or other public transport services.
  • Real-time information on public transport, including delays or cancellations and alternative  options when these occur. This needs to be available online but also at stations, stops and interchanges, in forms that are accessible to those who do not have (or cannot use) smartphones.

The online form invites you to give a multiple choice answer to Q30. Q31 then asks you to select your top two from the following list of answers:

  • Timetable alignment between modes, for example bus and train timetables match-up
  • Using ‘one ticket’ across multiple modes of transport
  • Better journey information on the best routes to your destination, combining multiple modes of transport
  • Better information that helps you on your journey, for example clear signage, information about disruption
  • Better interchanges between journey legs, for example, combining rail and bus stations
  • Another option (specify)

We suggest choosing from bullet-points 1, 2 and 5, given that you can still emphasise the importance of points 3 and 4 (on information) in answer to Q29 above.

  • Autonomous vehicles (AVs) need to be regulated to a very high standard of safety. Current standards of safety on our roads are far lower than for rail, aviation or shipping. The development of AV technology should therefore be seen as an opportunity to achieve a transformational improvement in safety, not merely a marginal one.
  • The regulation of electric scooters and other ‘micromobility vehicles’ that require no human power should strike a balance between making them fast and powerful enough to attract people out of their cars, without making them so fast or powerful that they endanger pedestrians – particularly the most vulnerable pedestrians – or their own users, or the health benefits of active travel. The speed limit should be 12mph (not 15mph as has been permitted for some of the e-scooter trials) and the power limit should be 250 Watts (this is about the maximum power that a human of typical fitness can sustain for more than a very short burst).
  • Local authorities should have stronger powers to limit the numbers of e-scooters or other micromobility vehicles available in their area, and where these vehicles can and cannot be parked. They should have stronger enforcement powers against people or operators who breach these rules, e.g. parking these vehicles in ways that cause obstructions or danger to others.
  • The Integrated National Transport Strategy should set a clear objective to reduce motor traffic by at least 20% by 2030 (i.e. the reduction needed to meet legally-binding carbon budgets and climate targets), with higher reductions in urban areas (e.g. to comply with air quality limits). Decisions on individual transport schemes, and on new housing and other developments, should then reflect whether the proposal aligns with this overall motor traffic reduction objective.
  • The appraisal of transport projects and new developments should also reflect the full range of health, environmental, equity and quality of life impacts. It should not be automatically assumed that road infrastructure or new development will deliver economic growth, as the link between them is far from clear.
  • The Integrated National Transport Strategy (INTS) should be backed by spending commitments which shift transport funding significantly, from building new road capacity to investing in clean and healthy transport options, and in maintaining our existing roads and paths.
  • The INTS should be clearly linked with wider health, environmental and other policy objectives, by supporting physically active travel, safer streets, clean air and a fairer, more affordable and sustainable transport system. In particular, it should be linked to planning policies which aim to ensure that housing and other developments support clean and healthy transport rather than further entrenching car-dependence.
  • Road safety needs to be a key objective of the INTS – with a focus on reducing the sources of danger faced by people walking or cycling, by children and older people, by people with disabilities etc – if it is to achieve wider health, environmental and societal benefits.
  • The INTS should aim to rebalance the costs of different transport options. Successive governments have frozen or even reduced fuel duty every year since 2011, while public transport fares continued rising. Between 2011 and 2023, bus fares rose by 76% and rail fares by 50%, while petrol costs went up by just 23%. Already by 2020, the policy had resulted in 5% extra motor traffic, and hence an extra 5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions and 15,000 tonnes of NOx emissions, together with £250m lost income from reduced bus patronage and £75 from lost rail patronage.  It has now cost the Exchequer over £100bn, with the lowest income groups being hardest hit by the resulting cuts to services. With fuel duty revenues set to dwindle as petrol and diesel vehicles are replaced by electric vehicles, there is a growing fiscal case – as well as an environmental and equity case – for introducing a fair form of road user charging to replace it, in ways that also achieve climate, air quality and other goals.
  • The INTS should set out how local and sub-national transport policies and spending – and Local Transport Plans in particular – will support national policy objectives on reducing motor traffic and other wider policy goals.

Suggested Answers for Groups

i) Integrating transport modes: including:

  • Integrated timetabling, ticketing and information (see Q7 for more on data).
  • Integration of shared transport (including bikeshare), community transport and schools transport with the planning of public transport.
  • Provision of mobility hubs to facilitate interchange between modes, including shared transport options.
  • Improved pedestrian and cycle access to, and cycle parking and storage at stations and interchanges.
  • The provision of adequate, well-designed, accessible and clearly-signed cycle spaces on trains, with consistent user-friendly processes for reserving these and information on how to use them.

ii) Integrating transport planning with land use planning.

Planning legislation and policy must support higher-density developments in locations that have or can be provided with high-quality public transport (e.g. as advocated by the Create Streets / Sustrans report Stepping off the Road to Nowhere), backed by better data on how developments can support reduced car-dependence (as advocated by DfT’s Science Advisory Council – see Q4 below).

Adopting this approach could enable more high-quality homes to be built, requiring less land and generating less motor traffic, as well as avoiding the financial costs to occupants of being dependent on driving to reach key destinations. It would therefore also generate fewer objections! Evidence from the Royal Town Planning Institute suggests that, despite decades of planning policies supporting sustainable transport and reduced dependence on private motor vehicles (e.g. the original Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG13 from 1994 – not available online), we have made no progress on achieving this goal – while a recent New Economics Foundation report suggests that, if anything, we have gone backwards.

We therefore need a transparent data-led test that local authorities, developers, the public and public inquiry inspectors can all use to identify whether a proposed development site or an actual development is likely to support reduced car dependence or worsen it.

The Government should consider how the Department for Transport’s Connectivity Tool could be further developed to support this aim.

iii) Integrating transport planning with other Government missions: economic growth, health, tackling barriers to opportunity, safer streets, net zero. Reducing car-dependence and supporting a wider range of clean, healthy and affordable transport options would support all of these missions.

[n.b.1 – the safer streets ‘mission’ is about less street crime not road safety, however more walking and cycling means more ‘eyes on the street’ and hence less street crime]

[n.b.2 – a growing body of evidence suggests that, for the surface transport sector to play its part in achieving the Government’s carbon budgets, there will need to be at least a 20% reduction in car-km by 2030. The Scottish Government has set a target to achieve such a cut and the Welsh Government has a similar target. The ‘Vision’ that guides the ‘Vision-led’ Integrated National Transport Strategy must similarly aim to reduce motor traffic in line with the UK’s climate targets, while also contributing to meeting WHO air quality standards in urban areas.]

The combined effect of the Rail Reform Bill, the Better Buses Bill and the English Devolution Bill must support all of the three outcomes above:

  • It will naturally help achieve outcome i). However a balance will need to be struck between national coordination of rail networks and devolved coordination of local public transport – including urban and suburban rail networks as well as bus, tram or other ‘metro’ networks.

It is particularly important to achieve ii). Measures proposed in the English Devolution White Paper (i.e. the shift to more unitary authorities) could improve the integration of transport and land-use planning. However the Government also needs to consider the potential role of Subnational Transport Bodies (STBs) in integrating land use and transport planning – see Q7.

[N.B. The call for ideas says that “Data” in the context of this question “can mean having better information about journeys, such as but not limited to departure times, journey planning, traffic information and accessibility information.”  However it is probably better to address the use of data in decision-making in response to Q9].

i) Real time information for public transport users.

More real-time information at bus and coach stops, and interchanges.

ii) Mobility As A Service (MaaS).

In principle, enabling transport users to access information about, and pay for, transport services via a single online payment platform should enable better-informed decision-making by transport users, including multi-modal journeys and particularly those involving shared transport options. In practice, MaaS has yet to fulfil this potential. The notable exception is Finland, where legislation has required transport providers to make data on their services available in a consistent form.

[N.B. the Call for ideas says that “Technology” in the context of this question “means new and innovative ways to complete journeys, for example but not limited to the use of autonomous vehicles, electric scooters and e-hailing rides.”]

i) Autonomous vehicles (AVs).

AVs could either make significant improvements to the safety and sustainability of road transport, or could significantly worsen these, depending on how the technology is regulated.

  • To maximise the safety benefits, the Government must specify a very high standard of safety – not just a marginal improvement compared with a ‘careful and competent driver’ (a term which itself is poorly defined in law) – before AVs are authorised for public use on public roads, even if only under limited circumstances. In particular, AVs and the legislation governing them should never rely on users to intervene in safety-critical situations. If an AV is ‘driving itself’, it must be capable of reaching a ‘minimal risk condition’ (e.g. it must be able to stop and park safely) if a safety-critical situation arises (e.g. if the weather changes such that it can no longer drive itself).
  • Unfortunately, it will only be possible to realise the potential environmental and equity benefits of AV technology if and when it develops to the point where AVs can complete any journey in all conditions, such that there is no longer a need for a user to be capable of driving, or for a steering wheel. Only then will it be possible for people with sight loss or other disabilities and health conditions to use AVs – and for people to be able to use AVs without having to own them (because an AV can drive itself to pick you up before taking you to where you want to go).
  • To maximise the potential for realising these sustainability and equity benefits, the Government should prepare a pathway towards a rapid and complete switch to AVs if and when the technology reaches this point, to minimise the period of time in which both human-driven and automated vehicles are sharing the roads with pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised road users. This will be a particularly safety-critical phase in the technology’s evolution.

ii) Low-speed Zero Emissions Vehicles (LZEVs, also known as Micro-mobility vehicles), including e-scooters.

E-scooters and other other vehicles with low-powered and low-speed motors could improve transport sustainability and safety, if suitably regulated. However the regulations governing them need to strike a balance. LZEVs need to be fast and powerful enough to attract people to switch from driving; yet they must not be so fast or powerful that they endanger pedestrians (particularly more vulnerable pedestrians) or their own users, or undermine the health benefits of active travel. Therefore:

  • The maximum power for LZEVs should be 250W. This is about the maximum power that a typically fit human (i.e. someone who is not a trained athlete) can put out for more than a very short burst.

For vehicles that involve no physical exertion, the maximum speed at which motors can operate should be 12.5mph (i.e. 20kmh, as set in some local trials), rather than 15.5mph (or 25kmh, the limit set by the previous Government for rented e-scooters participating in national trials). London has set a 12.5mph limit for its hired e-scooter trials, as did Paris (n.b. it has since banned them, though privately-owned e-scooters are still permitted).

i) Reform of transport appraisal.

We argue elsewhere [in answer to Q5] that the ‘vision’ at the heart of the Integrated National Transport Strategy should be a future in which motor traffic is reduced as required to meet the UK’s legally-binding carbon budgets and net zero target. This overarching objective should then determine how transport schemes are appraised and decisions are made. Decisions on which transport schemes and new developments should be based on an assessment of whether or not the proposal helps achieve this objective.

This would produce very different results from the current approach in which it is assumed that motor traffic will inevitably grow in line with the range of scenarios envisaged by the Government’s  National Road Traffic Projections  (these range from 8% to 54% growth in motor traffic by 2060), and assess which schemes are best suited to coping with this growth.

Even though these scenarios are clearly undesirable (even if these vehicles are all electrically powered in future), the assumption that they will occur is self-fulfilling. It results in road schemes being built to cope with the assumed growth in motor-traffic. The predicted growth then inevitably happens, due to greater investment in road infrastructure than public transport.

A better approach would be to favour schemes which help bring about a preferable future with less motor traffic, and with more use of clean and healthy options such as active travel, public, shared and community transport.

ii) Evidence-based decision-making on land use and transport.

  • DfT’s Science Advisory Panel has highlighted the need for better data to inform the transport aspects of planning decisions. At present, modelling is undertaken primarily to assess what additional road capacity is needed to cope with the predicted increases in motor traffic that a development is expected to generate, rather than what sustainable transport measures might avoid the need for this additional capacity, let alone monitoring to see retrospectively what measures are working to avert this need. This needs to change.
  • As noted earlier (in response to Q6), a test is needed to assess whether proposed development sites, or actual development proposals, are likely to support a net reduction in motor traffic or to perpetuate its growth. The Department for Transport’s Connectivity Tool could potentially support such a test. The evidence to inform this test will doubtless improve over time, as more data is gathered on what works and what does not.
  • Subnational Transport Bodies (STBs) are already helping local transport authorities to set evidence-based Quantifiable Carbon Reduction (QCR) targets in their Local Transport Plans (LTPs). They could also support local planning authorities (or, better still, unitary authorities) to coordinate where new homes should be built, to support sustainable transport objectives.

[N.B. This is where we need to discuss all the really important things that DfT’s questions haven’t asked about!]

i) Clear and measurable objectives and targets, backed by suitable monitoring arrangements, coordination of policies and objectives of other key actors (e.g. local authorities, Subnational Transport Bodies, National Highways and Great British Rail), and a new approach to transport appraisal

  • The ‘vision’ underlying the transport strategy should be expressed in the form of clear and measurable objectives to reduce motor traffic and/or increase the proportion of trips made by clean and healthy transport (active travel, public transport etc). These objectives should align with the need for transport to contribute to the UK’s climate targets, to the WHO guidelines for clean air and other wider policy goals.
  • The INTS should spell out how these objectives are to be monitored.
  • There should be clear links between the objectives of the INTS and the promised Road Safety Strategy (RSS), with the INTS including some high-level road danger reduction objectives and the RSS demonstrably supporting the health, net zero and other objectives of the INTS.
  • The INTS should commit to revive the Local Transport Plan (LTP) system, with processes for ensuring that transport and planning policies support the objectives of the INTS. It should spell out the role of Subnational Transport Bodies (STBs) in providing regional coordination of action to reduce carbon emissions from surface transport – particularly decisions on where housing should be provided.
  • It should commit to reviewing the transport appraisal process, ensuring that transport schemes and new developments are appraised against whether or not they contribute to the wider objectives of the INTS (i.e. it should also set out how the ‘vision’ is to be ‘validated’), rather than merely assessing how well (or badly) they would cope with the future scenarios envisaged by DfT’s National Road Traffic Projections, (all of which involve continued growth in motor traffic).

ii) Rebalancing transport funding to achieve a reduction in motor traffic, and to prioritise the maintenance of existing roads and paths rather than building new major roads.

  • A report for the TUC by Transport for Quality of Life (TQL) found that achieving a 20% reduction in car-km by 2030 will require an 80% increase in rail passenger-km by then and a 120% increase in passenger-km by bus and trams / light rail. Yet these increases would still leave public transport usage in Britain below the levels of those of other European city regions. Achieving these increases will require an annual average of £10bn of additional capital spending on public transport over the next 12 years, while annual operational spending will need to rise by around £19bn by 2030.
  • A National Audit Office report on active travel investment revealed evidence commissioned by DfT, showing that it would have required total spending of £7bn on active travel to come close to meeting the walking and cycling targets set in DfT’s 2nd Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS2). Yet CWIS2 actually envisaged around £3.8bn of spending over 5 years, an amount that was later cut. It will now require even more than this to meet the Government’s target to increase walking and cycling to 50% of urban trips by 2030. An IPPR report for Cycling UK has called for over £2bn of annual spending on active travel, amounting to around 10% of total transport spending.
  • These sums could be raised partly by reducing spending on new road capacity that will not be needed in a future where motor traffic growth is halted and reversed. Building roads is hugely damaging to the climate and local environment (including air quality, noise, habitats, landscape etc), while failing to tackle congestion or provide the economic benefits that are often claimed (again, see the TQL report).
  • Further funding could be raised through road user charging and/or workplace parking levies, designed to tackle both the global (climate) and local (air quality etc) impacts of motor transport. Public support for the principle of road user charging has increased greatly since 2007, with even higher levels of public support achieved (62% or higher) if the funding is used to improve public transport and tackle air quality and climate impacts. However road user charging needs to be fair. The Commons Transport Committee and Green Alliance have called for a commission to assess how these objectives can be achieved.
  • Transport funding should also be rebalanced to favour maintaining existing roads and paths rather than building new road capacity. Within this, greater emphasis should be placed on maintaining more minor roads, paths and cycle facilities where walking and cycling activity is concentrated. The Scottish Government has found that funding cuts to minor road maintenance have significantly higher economic costs than those affecting trunk road maintenance. This is probably because walking and cycling account for a greater proportion of the traffic on minor roads, while pedestrians and cyclists’ maintenance claims are much more likely to involve serious injuries, not just property damage. The average maintenance-related legal claim made by cyclists is 13 times higher than those from drivers. 

iii) Rebalancing transport user costs.

  • A fair road user charging policy would help shift how people choose to travel, as well as providing funding to improve the alternatives to driving. Successive governments have frozen or even reduced fuel duty every year since 2011, while public transport costs continued rising. Between 2011 and 2023, bus fares rose by 76% and rail fares by 50%, while petrol costs went up by just 23%. Already by 2020, the policy had resulted in 5% extra motor traffic, and hence an extra 5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions and 15,000 tonnes of NOx emissions, together with £250m lost income from reduced bus patronage and £75 from lost rail patronage.  It has now cost the Exchequer over £100bn, with the lowest income groups being hardest hit by the resulting cuts to services. With fuel duty revenues set to dwindle anyway as petrol and diesel vehicles are replaced by electric vehicles, there is a growing fiscal case – as well as an environmental and equity case – for introducing a fair form of road user charging to replace it, in ways that also achieve climate, air quality and other goals.

iv) Road danger reduction

A road safety strategy is now long overdue, as are many of the policies that it is expected to include. The promised new road safety strategy should (a) adopt the principles of ‘road danger reduction’ (i.e. it should focus on tackling the sources of danger, especially those that endanger the most vulnerable road users, in order to maximise the health, environmental and other benefits of increased active travel); and (b) should adopt the aim of ‘vision zero’ (i.e. it should ultimately aim to eliminate all road deaths and serious injuries, by taking a systematic approach to reducing the sources of danger). It should therefore follow the safe systems approach:

  • Safe road and path networks: It is particularly important to plan networks that allow people of all ages and abilities to walk, wheel or cycle, making it safe, convenient and enjoyable. That means: (a) safe pavements with even surfaces, free of pavement parking and other obstructions; (b) safe cycle networks consisting of roads where motor traffic volumes and speeds are low enough to allow people of all ages and permit safe sharing with motor vehicles, or separate cycle lanes and tracks; (c) safe junctions and crossings; and (d) local restrictions on through traffic, including Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and School Streets.
  • Safe road users: (a) Awareness campaigns, e.g. to boost understanding of recent Highway Code changes, thereby tackling road users and behaviours which cause the greatest risk to others (rather than the victims); backed by (b) A review of road traffic offences and penalties, with a greater emphasis on driving bans, in order to strengthen public protection.
  • Safe vehicles: Accelerate uptake of ‘direct vision’ lorries, following the model pursued in London.
  • Safe speeds: 20mph to be the default for built-up streets, with most rural single-carriageways being reduced to no more than 40mph.
  • Safe post-crash response: Better data on the legal system’s responses to road collisions, better support for road crash victims.

v) Freight

  • Shifting road freight to rail: In 2019, 9% of the UK’s freight was moved by rail compared to 79% by road. Yet Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) that year accounted for 16% of transport’s greenhouse gas emissions. Shifting freight deliveries from road to rail would achieve significant carbon savings. It takes 76% less carbon emissions to move a given weight of goods by rail than by road. Moreover, the alternative of lorry electrification is unlikely to erode this benefit quickly, as electrification is more difficult for HGVs than for cars. The Chartered Institute for Logistics and Transport (CILT) estimates that “two-thirds reductions in the carbon footprint of a supply chain are achievable in a very short timescale” by shifting to rail freight. This would not only reduce carbon emissions but would also reduce congestion, the wear and tear of road surfaces and the problems caused by shortages of lorry drivers. The current economic benefits of rail freight (including benefits to customers, reduced congestion, reduced carbon and improved safety) are worth £2.45bn annually. There is potential to increase this significantly, with a good proportion of the benefit going to communities in former industrial heartlands.
  • Electrification of railways: A relatively small amount of electrification could greatly increase the capacity for rail freight, as well as reducing its carbon footprint. A study for the Rail Freight Group (RFG) estimated that investment in the rail freight network of around £9–12bn in capital and £500m in revenue over ten years would save around 40% of the carbon from HGVs and would generate around £75–91bn in wider social and economic benefits. A separate study estimated electrification of around 700-800 miles would complete the core rail freight network and allow electric locomotives to be used across the system. Less than 50 miles of electrification would enable two million train miles a year to be converted to electric haulage.
  • Road user charging for HGVs. The benefits identified in the RFG report would increase to £112–136bn if combined with the introduction of distance-based road user charging for lorries. This would help to recoup the full cost of HGVs on society.

Urban logistics. The shift to rail freight needs to be accompanied by action to reduce the need for large lorries to operate on urban streets. Urban logistics hubs or urban consolidation centres can enable larger lorries to transfer their goods onto smaller urban vehicles for the ‘last mile’. They can also facilitate use of cargo bikes – the EU-funded Cycle Logistics project found that 51% of urban freight journeys could be undertaken by cargo bike. More recent research by the Active Travel Academy, commissioned by the charity Possible, found that cargo bikes made urban deliveries around 60% faster than vans (delivering 10 parcels per hour, compared with 6 per hour for vans), as well as reducing congestion, road danger, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.