“Can’t wait for the road to be widened!” The effects of Induced Demand.

In what may have been his last act, Conservative transport minister Mark Harper has approved the Development Consent Order to dual the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham. With an estimated cost of £290m in 2014 (£390m in 2024 prices) this could be one of the single most expensive transport projects in the North East. 

We don’t yet know what will be included in political manifestos, so this may still not go ahead, but in the last few months both Government and opposition Labour shadow ministers have supported the scheme. In this blog we present evidence on emissions, road safety and the economy that suggests there would be far better uses for this money.

Our key concern is that, according to National Highways’ own estimate, A1 dualling will lead to an additional 1,437,282 tonnes CO2e at exactly the same time as we are all being told we should be rapidly reducing emissions.

They feel the carbon emissions produced as a result of the project would be "ruinous"https://t.co/QnYTmFWT8a

— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) April 15, 2024

Most, if not all, of the evidence we present below applies to all major road expansion projects. 

1. The UK cannot achieve legal carbon budgets if it continues to expand road capacity

We know that:

• Action needs to be taken to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the UK as a whole the target reductions are set out in a series of legally-binding carbon budgets to achieve Net Zero by 2050.  Northumberland County Council itself, has committed to “carbon neutrality for the county by 2030 and net-zero emissions for all greenhouse gases by 2040“.
• Increasing road capacity will lead to increased carbon emissions. National Highways’ estimate, obtained via FOI, is that the A1 dualling project will lead to an additional 1,437,282 tonnes CO2e.
• Multiple organisations have modelled whether traffic levels can increase or need to decrease in order to meet carbon budgets. We set out the results of this modelling in our blog How much less will we use our cars in future? This modelling suggests a >20% reduction in traffic levels will be required even with a rapid transition to EVs.
• The UK High Court has recently ruled that the UK government’s climate strategy is not fit-for-purpose, and therefore breaches the UK Climate Change Act.

If the Government had a lawful climate strategy that robustly demonstrated that it was possible to dual the A1 and still meet carbon budgets then that would be different, but currently it does not. This strategy would have to show what other emissions will be reduced to offset the increase due to A1 dualling.

Instead the Government use what Transport Action Network describe as a ‘bonkers test‘, comparing the extra emissions from the scheme to the total UK emissions from all sources. Using the same logic we could all justify driving everywhere, burning coal on an open fire and flying long-haul six times a year on the grounds that each makes only a small percentage difference to total UK emissions.

The leader of Northumberland County Council, Councillor Sanderson has said there were “different” ways to address environmental concerns and that “the Northumberland Line project would help to take cars off the road by providing a reliable rail link between south east Northumberland and Newcastle.” If this is true then for transparency’s sake this plan and associated modelling should be released immediately.

Timing will also be an important part of the strategy. If built in 2035 or 2040 the impact would be less than if built in 2025, because a greater proportion of vehicles would be EVs. If a new Government restored the ban of new petrol and diesel cars to 2030, that would help also bring forward the date when this scheme could be built.

The other consideration would be what other road schemes will be built. Just dualling the A1 would be far less impact than a large programme of work expanding roads across the country, as is currently planned.

2. There are much better options to improve road safety

Perhaps the best reason given to support the A1 dualling project is to improve road safety. SPACE for Gosforth supports Vision Zero – the target of having zero deaths or serious injuries from road traffic collisions.  

Between 2006 and 2024 there were 785 deaths or injuries recorded in total across all single carriageway sections of the A1 in Northumberland, from Morpeth to Berwick-upon-Tweed. These included 26 fatalities, 133 serious injuries and 626 slight injuries. In the same time period, across Northumberland as a whole, there were 3054 people killed or seriously injured on the roads.

However, we know schemes to increase road capacity have the potential to increase deaths, injury and poor health in a number of ways including:

• From air pollution.
• By contributing to climate change.
• From physical inactivity because they encourage more driving and driving is a sedentary activity.
• From increased road traffic collisions in surrounding areas due to higher volumes of traffic caused by the scheme, including on the remaining single carriageway between Ellingham and Berwick-upon-Tweed.
• Due to the opportunity cost of not using the same budget on more cost-effective road safety measures.

It is also not clear from the injury statistics that dualling will reduce the number of people killed or injured. On the ~10 mile dualled section of the A1 between the A19 and A167, there have been about 9 fatalities and 53 serious injuries since 2006, a similar rate per mile as the single carriageway section. So even if individual journeys are made safer, the totals remain similar because of the much higher volume of traffic.

The paper Traffic volume and crashes and how crash and road characteristics affect their relationship – A meta-analysis explains this, setting out that “Crashes increase with increasing volumes [of traffic] but mostly at a lower rate. The relationship is strongest for multi vehicle crashes, at high volumes, and on freeways.” This means that additional traffic caused by this scheme is likely to lead to additional collisions, especially on surrounding roads that won’t have benefited from the safety improvements.

Looking at the NE England Road User Casualty Dashboard, it is easy to see the opportunity cost of focusing on one section of dual carriageway rather than a more comprehensive safety plan. The map below shows deaths (in red) and serious injuries (dark blue) from road traffic collisions in Northumberland between 2014 and 2024 (to date). This includes 141 fatalities and 1,550 serious injuries spread across both rural and urban areas.

Map of road user casualties in Northumberland from 2014 to 2024 (to date)

Councillor Sanderson, leader of Northumberland Council has said “the safety factor of dualling the road was the most important part”, but if there was a £390m budget to improve road safety there is no way, given the distribution of injuries shown above, that anyone would reasonably decide to spend the entire amount on just one thirteen-mile section of road.

For the same price as the A1 dualling project, more cost-effective measures could be introduced right across Northumberland’s rural roads, achieving a much greater safety benefit overall.

More cost-effective options for improving road safety include:

• Introducing average speed cameras. When these were introduced on the A9 in Scotland, there was a reduction of about 40% in fatal and serious injuries.
• Lower speed limits by junctions or where visibility is limited.
• Reducing speed limits on minor rural roads that are not part of the main road network.
• Traffic-free walking and cycling routes and safer pedestrian and cycling crossings.
• Specific junction improvements.  

The group raised questions about road safety and net-zero planshttps://t.co/JcpJgGCUg1

— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) April 27, 2024

We should also remember that carbon emissions from the scheme will contribute to climate change and extreme weather events. Scientists have sought to understand the likely impact of additional carbon emissions on death rates due to climate change through the calculation of a “mortality cost of carbon (MCC)”, which estimates the number of deaths caused by the emission of one additional metric ton of CO2. According to Nature, “adding 4,434 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020—equivalent to the lifetime emissions of 3.5 average Americans—causes one excess death globally in expectation between 2020-2100.” Dividing 1,437,282 tonnes by 4,434 suggests the climate impact of the A1 dualling project will be in the region of 324 additional deaths.

3. Economics

The economic case for new roads is generally based on the idea that if capacity is increased people will be able to travel more quickly. However, this does not always work out in practice, and other costs also need to be taken into account.

Specifically

• Additional traffic induced by the increased road capacity means journey times don’t reduce as planned.
• Road works while schemes are built cause delays. 
• Economic damage from climate change.
• Like with road safety, there is an opportunity cost from not investing in other projects that would yield a greater economic benefit.

In the example below relating to the M25, journey times improved in the first year after a new lane was installed but then returned to what they were prior to the extra lane being installed. The article doesn’t say whether one year of improved journey times was sufficient to offset multiple years of delays due to roadworks.

A study showed that M25 widening did not result in less congestion, but rather more people used it and quickly gobbled up extra capacity. The economic model to justify the investment relied on the promise of higher traffic speeds.

I promise you, one more lane won’t fix it. pic.twitter.com/5bTLlxCEpt

— Adam Tranter (@adamtranter) December 31, 2022

In 2019, the BBC reported that Traffic was ‘worse’ at Newport M4 junction in Wales after £13m upgrade.

In 2021 the Welsh Government announced new road building would be put on hold while a review was undertaken. In 2023, following that review, Wales cancelled its road building programme concluding that “approach of the last 70 years was not working” aiming instead to put the money into projects that “reduce carbon emissions and support a shift to public transport, walking and cycling, improve safety through small-scale change and help the Welsh government adapt to the effects of climate change”.

Wales is not alone in coming to this conclusion, as we set out in our blog How much less will we use our cars in future?

A recently released paper estimates the likely economic damage due to climate change to be about £840 per tonne CO2e emitted. Multiplying that by the 1.4m additional tonnes that will be emitted due to A1 dualling gives an expected economic impact of negative £1.2bn.

Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought – report https://t.co/xXviMMPhz8

— Guardian Environment (@guardianeco) May 17, 2024

By comparison, walking and cycling schemes have none of these disadvantages. In 2014 the Government reviewed the evidence relating to walking and cycling schemes and concluded “The typical benefit-cost ratios [for walking/cycling schemes] are considerably greater than the threshold of 4:1 which is considered by the Department for Transport as ‘very high’ value for money.” Investing the £390m budget that would be required for A1 dualling in walking and cycling schemes could lead to an economic benefit of >£1.6bn.

Conclusion

The A1 dualling business case now will be worse than ever as a result of inflation and the need to consider the impact of emissions which, as above, could amount to £1.2bn economic damage and 324 deaths just due to this one project.

Our view is that the budget should be reallocated (while there is still a budget) to cheaper, more effective changes that will lead to greater economic and safety benefits without the negative impact on climate and the environment. For example:

• Average speed cameras to improve safety – with a 40% reduction in KSIs achieved on the A9 in Scotland.
• Cleaner engines and more EV chargers to reduce emissions and air pollution.
• Alternatives to driving to reduce the need to drive on the A1.
• Tourist services to allow people to visit Northumberland without needing to own a car.
• Service roads for farm vehicles so they don’t need to use the A1 itself.
• Safe walking and cycling routes.

Of course, the future Government could choose to ignore the emissions and go ahead anyway. 

Media Articles

An environmental campaign group has criticised long-awaited proposals to dual the A1 north of Morpeth. https://t.co/0aAkep2TFE

— Northumberland Gazette (@alnwickgazette) April 16, 2024

The group raised questions about road safety and net-zero planshttps://t.co/JcpJgGCUg1

— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) April 27, 2024

A campaign has now been launched against the dualling of the A1 in Northumberlandhttps://t.co/0hEQT5OXWr

— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) February 23, 2022

The Journal: Go Green with us – and say no to A1 dualling #regionalfronts pic.twitter.com/wbXQTdMGTv

— Regional front pages (@regionalfronts) April 15, 2015

https://twitter.com/WATERSHED_i/status/1709892270781005918

The post A1 dualling + 1.4m tonnes CO2e appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

Countdown from www.climateemergencycountdown.com

Newcastle City Council has just issued an update on progress against its September 2020 ‘Net Zero Newcastle – 2030 Action Plan’ to the Council’s Climate Change Committee.

In this blog we look at the progress that has been made regarding transport, and in particular relating to walking and cycling. 

Background

When the Council declared a Climate Emergency on 3rd April 2019 there were 4,290 days to meet the target. As of 21st September 2022, 29.5% of time available had passed, and there are now only 3,022 days to reach the target. 

Councillor Byrne, Cabinet Member for a Connected, Clean City, confirmed in a recent Cabinet meeting that “The climate emergency is here and it is now. We [Newcastle City Council] have to move further, faster“.

At the 2020 Newcastle Climate Summit we heard that we needed to reduce our emissions by 10 per cent per year, every year’.

This summer’s unprecedented high temperatures, both in Newcastle and across the world, have made it clear that climate change is happening now.

The extreme heat of the past few days has proven more needs to be done in Newcastle to stop climate change https://t.co/fPXKPpOnwn

— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) July 19, 2022

Transport Emissions

Transport is responsible for 33% of the city’s emissions. 

The Government’s Decarbonising Transport plan sets out that a low-carbon transport network will only be achieved with:

• A transition away from fossil fuel powered vehicles to zero-emissions cars, vans, motorcycles, and scooters.
• Increasing walking and cycling – the government target is for half of all journeys in towns and cities to be cycled or walked by 2030.
• Good quality zero-emission public transport, especially for journeys that cannot easily be walked or cycled.

In addition, many transport organisations also believe a reduction in total miles driven will be necessary, including EVs – as emissions from producing EVs can be substantial.

The Council’s ‘Net Zero Newcastle – 2030 Action Plan’ has 28 Transport Priority Actions numbered T1 to T28. The Council’s update for each of these priority actions is included in the appendix at the end of this blog.

Walking and Cycling Progress

These are the main actions that Newcastle City Council has completed relating to walking and cycling.

• The Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), approved by the Council Cabinet in June 2021, outlines the Council’s intended walking and cycling network. (Priority Action T1). The LCWIP aims to implement a safe walking and cycling network that connects residential ares to schools, parks, and shopping areas. (T10) 
• A Low Traffic Neighbourhood trial (LTN) has been launched in Fenham to reduce traffic cutting through local streets and to create a safer, cleaner and greener neighbourhood.  Further LTNs are under development, including Heaton / Ouseburn in Autumn 2022. (T1) 
• The Council says it will continue to prioritise active travel and low carbon transport measures through developing plans for active travel hubs across the city centre, commercial districts and sensitive parts of the city. (T3)
• Further School Streets will be launched in September / October 2022 with “a major push” again in Spring 2023.  (T7)
• Five permanent bridge closures have been made in neighbourhoods, which make it safer to  walk and cycle. (T9)
• Public consultations will be launched for permanent schemes to reduce the dominance of cars in the city by reallocating road space to active travel, recognising that balancing the demands for space will require difficult decisions and leadership. (T9)

These are all positive steps in support of a future net-zero transport network. 

The Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP)

The map below shows the Gosforth part of the approved cycle network plan, including Gosforth High Street and a network of routes to connect residential areas, shops, schools and parks. All transport modes require a network of routes to be useful, and it is important that the network enables travel to main local destinations where people want to go.

This network complies with the Government’s LCWIP Technical Guidance that we looked at in our blog A Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan for Gosforth including the objective of having a network of routes where adjacent routes should not be any more than 400m apart. 

You can see the Cabinet LCWIP agenda item and associated documents here. 

To date, the Council has only made limited progress on implementing the LCWIP.  The main recent progress in the Gosforth area has been:

• the lightly-seggregated cycle lanes on Gosforth High Street and by Regent Centre, and
• stopping motor traffic using Salters Bridge, Stoneyhurst Road and Castles Farm Road as through routes.

The main challenge for the Council will be to continue to implement the approved LCWIP and to do so at the pace necessary to achieve a net-zero transport system by 2030.

Fewer, Cleaner Vehicles

Photo: SPACE for Heaton. Councillor Nick Forbes at the Council’s Climate Change event

The Council has taken the following actions to achieve this aim:

• The Low Traffic Neighbourhoods around Salter’s, Stoneyhurst, Castle Farm, Haldane and Argyle Bridges five bridges have cut traffic on residential streets without any material increase in traffic on neighbouring main roads. (T9)
• Parking charges have been reviewed, and the Alive After Five incentive to drive has been scaled back.  (T5)
• The Clean Air Zone was due to be implemented in 2021.  This has been delayed until late 2022 (charging to start in 2023). (T4)
• 2 new rapid chargers for taxis have been installed at Blandford Square and Clayton Street. (T18)
• Funding of c. £150k secured through Office for Low Emissions Vehicles for 23 EV chargers. (T19)
• There are 9 dedicated Electric Buses on the ‘Voltra’ 53/54 route between Newcastle and Gateshead. (T25)

These are also all positive steps in support of a future net-zero transport network, however lack of pace is a serious issue. Delays to the Clean Air Zone is a particular concern. This was consulted on in 2019 and was due to be implemented in 2021. This is despite the UK High Court ordering Government in 2016 to meet air quality limits in the shortest possible timescales. 

That said, the Council is largely dependent on government for legislation and funding to cut vehicle emissions, and lack of funding can delay progress.  The Council does have control other other actions, including low traffic neighbourhoods and reallocating road space, and they could expedite these measures to offset delays due to lack of government funding.

Conclusion

In SPACE for Gosforth’s Climate Change consultation response from February 2020 we said “Taking urgent action now, starting in 2020, will ensure Newcastle’s residents get the maximum benefit from the transition to low-carbon transport.” It is also critical if the Council’s 2030 target is to be met.

While there have been many positive steps, it feels unlikely that the city is yet achieving a 10% year on year reduction in transport emissions. This means future years emissions will need to be greater than 10%, perhaps substantially more.

Currently, there is little certainty the 2030 net-zero deadline can be met. While there are elements of a city-wide vision, (the LCWIP is a very positive step) the “city-wide Low Carbon Transport Vision” mentioned in T1 needs to be completed and plans drawn up that will achieve the vision within the next eight years. 

The Council also needs to demonstrate that it is prepared to make difficult decisions at pace. Recent history, including multiple reviews and decision making delays on Grey Street and Blackett Street, and no action at all on the Blue House group recommendations, suggest the Council has quite a way to go to achieve the pace it needs.

The Council can start to put this right when it announces its new plan for Gosforth High Street later this month by ensuring that plan reallocates road space away from motor vehicles and fully implements the approved LCWIP including protected cycle lanes the full length of the High Street.

They've been accused of 'not acting fast enough' to tackle climate change https://t.co/tvnct2sHYM

— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) September 13, 2022

APPENDIX – Newcastle City Council Transport Priority Actions

The Council’s progress update for transport is copied below.  You can see the full update here including actions relating to energy use and on how the city will adapt to climate change and more frequent extreme weather events. 

Newcastle City Council Net Zero Progress Report August 2022 – Transport Priority Actions

The post Net Zero Transport Update – August 2022 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

In March 2020, the Secretary of State for Transport said “Public transport and active travel will be the natural first choice for our daily activities. We will use our cars less and be able to rely on a convenient, cost-effective and coherent public transport network.”

This begs the question how much less will we use our cars?

This is important because, based on recent studies, the shift from petrol and diesel to electric vehicles will not be sufficient for the UK to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Key Points

• Based on Transport for the North analysis, road transport emissions will need to be 56% lower in 2030 compared to 2018, and 96% lower by 2040, to achieve net zero by 2050.
• A substantial > 20% and potentially up to 50%, reduction in vehicle miles driven is needed across the UK by 2030 to achieve these reductions.
• Reductions will need to be greater in urban areas where there are more viable alternatives to driving than in the countryside.
• National UK transport budgets are still based on a forecast that traffic will grow between 17% and 51% by 2050, relative to 2015, increasing CO₂ emissions by millions of tonnes.
• To achieve its target of net zero by 2030, Newcastle City Council will need to set a target for traffic reduction and act quickly to reduce miles driven and enable alternative low-carbon options for travelling like walking, cycling and zero-carbon public transport.

Traffic Reduction and Carbon Budgets

Many transport organisations across the UK are looking at how to support the UK target to achieve Net Zero by 2050 and limit global warming to 1.5°C. We have previously responded to consultations from Newcastle City Council, Transport for the North East and Transport for the North.

A key concept in achieving net zero is the carbon budget. This is the maximum total CO₂ emissions possible while still limiting global warming to 1.5°C. At 1.5°C there would still be “increasing heatwaves, more intense storms, and more serious droughts and floods, but would represent a much smaller risk than 2°C.”

Transport for the North have determined a Decarbonisation Trajectory that says how much of the transport carbon budget can be emitted each year up to 2050 and still meet the 1.5°C target. This shows that not only does the UK need to achieve net zero by 2050, but it also needs substantial short-term reductions in transport emissions, about 56% from 2018 by 2030.

Our Decarbonisation #Trajectory with the shape of the curve being dictated by a series of interim #emissions reduction milestones that ensure a rate of progress towards a #ZeroEemissions #transport system by 2050.

Discover more on #Decarbonisation https://t.co/QjuMSKIovN pic.twitter.com/18rV81E3Np

— Transport for the North (@Transport4North) December 10, 2021

Much of this 56% reduction will be achieved via the transition from petrol and diesel to electric vehicles. The remainder will need to be from switching journeys from driving to walking, cycling and public transport.

CREDS, the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions say that “There are no future scenarios in which the UK can meet its carbon reduction milestones over the next two decades whilst car traffic is allowed to grow.” and that “This is true even if electric vehicle uptake is massively accelerated.” They also say that “plans to build more road capacity … will be a waste of resources in the face of the necessity of lower traffic growth.”

In it’s Review of Energy Policy 2021 the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) concluded that “a 30-50% reduction in car kilometres is needed by 2030, relative to 2020, to meet the UK’s 6th Carbon Budget.” (Link to the report)

Other UK cities and regions have produced similar analyses:

• The Scottish Government have determined a 20% reduction in kilometres is needed by 2030, relative to 2019, to meet Scotland’s net zero target by 2045.
• Transport for London have concluded that to meet climate change targets, car traffic must reduce by at least 27% in London by the end of this decade.
• The Welsh Government has announced a freeze on new road building and a commitment to reduce overall car miles by 10% by 2030.
• Transport for the West Midlands has estimated that a reduction of car mileage by approximately 58% between 2020 and 2031 will be required.
• Glasgow City Council is planning to cut car use by 30% by 2030.
• Get one in four cars off the roads by 2030, say Oxfordshire County Council

Transport Quality of Life have looked at these figures in a report concluding that climate targets won’t be met unless the UK significantly reduces traffic over the next ten years, and concludes that “Cars, which are the main source of transport carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, will have to achieve even greater emissions reductions by 2030 to compensate for the road freight, maritime and aviation sectors where technological solutions are some way off.”

To a large extent the reduction required will be dependent on the speed of uptake of Electric Vehicles, which itself will be dependent on future availability and affordability of EVs. Green Alliance, an independent think tank and charity focused on environment has produced a report outlining a number of different scenarios showing fast, medium and slow uptake of EVs and what reduction in miles driven would be required as a result.

We’re aiming to reduce the number of kilometres travelled by car in Scotland by 20% by 2030.

That requires a big modal shift in how people travel, so we’re investing in a greener, decarbonised public transport network.#ScotBudget | #LetsDoNetZero pic.twitter.com/EXCjuTB1jf

— Transport Scotland (@transcotland) December 13, 2021

Update October 2023 – France follows Wales in stopping major road projects. 

France just followed Wales in stopping major road projects, viewing public transport investment as the future.

Meanwhile @Keir_Starmer lauds road-building as "Britain's future" at Labour conference, just as climate breakdown accelerates. Some dream.https://t.co/rnyN7muNnQ https://t.co/YAOf6ncByS

— Rafe Smyth (@safemyth) October 10, 2023

Update November 2023 – New report says “Electric vehicles are not enough to meet net zero”

The report, a collaboration between University of Leeds, Stantec, DecarboN8, Transport for the North (TfN), Transport for Greater Manchester and Bury Council, Newcastle University and the University of Lancaster, finds that “A reduction in travel by car, or equivalent, of at least 20%, (30% for DD), is required by 2030 to meet surface transport net zero”

The Bridging the Gap report is an excellent piece of collaborative work and we're proud to have been part of it.

The research by @Stantec and @N8Decarbo suggests people and place considerations are crucial if we are to meet #TransportDecarbonisation targets. https://t.co/iTWDA97EIF

— Transport for the North (@Transport4North) November 23, 2023

The Office of Budget Responsibility has also reduced its forecast of EV uptake from 67% of market share by 2027 to 38%. This is already factored it in to the Reverse Gear report on
CREDS UK website. This report shows that “pathways that achieve the Government’s aim on electrification could still be consistent with the CCC’s Balanced Pathway if a 20% reduction in road traffic levels were also to be achieved by 2030 relative to current plans.”

Rural vs Urban

In 2020, driving on rural roads was about 165 billion vehicle miles vs 115 billion on urban roads, a total of 280 billion. This is down from 357 billion miles in 2019. A further 30-50% reduction by 2030 would mean cutting this by 84 and 140 billion miles – more than the entire amount currently driven in urban areas.

From: Road traffic estimates in Great Britain: 2020

While some of this reduction will have to come from rural areas, the majority will have to be from urban areas where there are more viable alternatives to car travel.

Fortunately, the principle of traffic reduction is very popular with the public and seen as a priority. Unfortunately the details of making it happen in practice are much more challenginghttps://t.co/OnwVA5aKwX
11/n pic.twitter.com/C69dRZvpZJ

— Leo Murray @[email protected] (@crisortunity) November 28, 2021

The obvious priority is short journeys in urban areas. In the North East 37% of car journeys are under 5km (3 miles) and many of those could easily be walked or cycled.

Did you know that 37% of North East car journeys are under 5KM in distance?

Imagine the difference we could make to the environment if we swopped even 5% of those journeys to walking or cycling!

Use our cycling and walking maps to plan your routes: https://t.co/2D1kgvTfzY pic.twitter.com/Ed3Na2bmV0

— Go Smarter Go Active (@Go_smarterNE) November 27, 2021

Across the North as a whole, Transport for the North say “Just under 90% of car trips are under 10 kilometres.” 10km cycling takes about 30 minutes where there there are safe, direct routes, potentially quicker if using an e-Bike.

Investment is urgently required to reallocate road space currently used for vehicle traffic to public transport and to create a network of safe walking and cycling routes. Based on the analyses we have shared in this blog, these investments need to happen quickly and at a large scale right across the city.

Where’s the Money?

The UK’s Road Investment Strategy and associated budgets are still based on forecasts of increasing vehicle miles driven, completely the opposite to what is needed to meet the UK’s net zero targets.

A new Government commissioned report on ‘Union Connectivity, predicts a 51% increase in road traffic volumes, between 2015 and 2050.https://t.co/HhIzUoDt0c pic.twitter.com/yqHoQ2X7RF

— APPG for Cycling & Walking (@APPGCW) November 26, 2021

These increasing forecasts are based on a 2018 Department for Transport report saying “Traffic in England and Wales is forecast to increase across all scenarios, but the size of that growth depends on the assumptions made about the key drivers of future road demand. From 2015 traffic is forecast to grow by between 17% and 51% by 2050.” (paragraph 13)

To a large extent, what actually happens will be the result of government policy. The 51% increase quoted in the recent “Union Connectivity Review” assumes no tax additional tax on electric vehicles or road pricing, i.e. driving will remain much cheaper for drivers of electric vehicles. If the Government does apply a tax to vehicle journeys, to reverse the long-term trend where driving has become much cheaper than public transport, that should substantially reduce demand for driving.

The Government could, rather than spending £27 billion on building more roads, instead invest that in walking, cycling and public transport in support of its Net Zero target.

As well as benefiting the environment and public health, this would benefit the economy by reducing the cost of travel. The Scotsman reported that individual savings from cycling are equivalent to a 8% pay rise.

A local Dutch supermarket showing cycle parking for customers and a traffic-free cycle path

What’s Next?

Nationally, it is likely the Government will look seriously at road pricing to replace Fuel Duty and discourage excessive vehicle travel.

Newcastle City Council needs to move even more quickly to achieve net zero by 2030, and needs to set out plans for how to reduce miles driven and achieve mode-shift targets. 

Confirmation that local bridges will remain open for walking and cycling, but not vehicle traffic, is a great start. Achieving the required reduction in vehicle use will need more changes like these, as well as school streets and protected cycle lanes on main roads, to give residents a range of viable alternatives to driving.

Notes

Data showing how traffic has increased over time is available from the Department for Transport Website.

The Government published its Transport decarbonisation plan in July 2021.

Transport for the North has also published a Decarbonisation Strategy.

Newcastle City Council’s 2030 net zero plan can be viewed on its Climate View website.

The post How much less will we use our cars in future? appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

Warming Stripes for Durham from 1795-2020. https://showyourstripes.info

Transport for the North (TfN) has recently consulted on its draft Decarbonisation Strategy covering road and rail transport in the north of England. This blog sets out SPACE for Gosforth’s response to that consultation.

TfN’s objectives align with the national Transport Decarbonisation Plan and aim to meet the Paris Agreement target to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. According to the World Meteorological Organization, in 2020 the global mean temperature was already 1.2 ± 0.1 °C above the 1850–1900 baseline.

Specifically, the TfN strategy aims to achieve:

• A 55% reduction in emissions from 2018 to 2030, achieved mostly through mode-shift and demand reduction.
• A 95% reduction in emissions from 2018 to 2040, reflecting longer-term decarbonisation measures, such as a high proportion of zero-emissions vehicles in the vehicle fleet.
• A close to zero date of 2045 for carbon emissions from surface transport in the North.

The profile of reductions (TfN’s Decarbonisation Trajectory) has been set so that total emissions between now and 2045 are less than the ‘carbon budget’ required to meet the Paris Agreement 1.5 °C target. TfN have calculated that without any action that carbon budget will be expended by 2030 – so rapid action is necessary.

The Transport for the North draft Decarbonisation Strategy is here:
https://transportforthenorth.com/reports/decarbonising-transport-setting-the-challenge/

The UK National Transport Decarbonisation Plan can be found here: https://transportforthenorth.com/decarbonisation/

This recent short feature from the BBC explains the link between climate change and recent heat waves in the US and Canada. Without effective and urgent action we will see more and more stories like this.

This is the SPACE for Gosforth response.

Dear Transport for the North

Re: Transport for the North Decarbonisation Strategy – August 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Transport for the North draft Decarbonisation Strategy.

We are a community group based in Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne. SPACE stands for Safe Pedestrian and Cycling Environment. Our group was established in 2015 due to residents’ concerns about road danger and air pollution in our local neighbourhood. You can find our group objectives on our website www.spaceforgosforth.com/about.

We previously responded to the Transport for the North Strategic Transport Plan consultation. That response can be found here: https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/tfn_consultation_questions/

In that response we posed a number of questions and are pleased to see that Transport for the North is making progress towards answering those questions, including via the Northern Evidence Academic Forum. It is extremely important, given the urgent need to decarbonise transport, that the TfN decarbonisation plan includes actions that will be most effective and can be implemented quickly, ideally within months rather than years.

In this response we focus on road transport, which is responsible for 95% of surface transport emissions, and on actions that Transport for the North will need to take immediately to achieve a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 in line with the TfN Decarbonisation Trajectory.

We have previously responded to Newcastle upon Tyne’s call for evidence about climate change, which includes many actions that can be taken by local authorities. https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/evidence-about-climate-change/

Contents

1. The Decarbonisation Challenge – an existential threat
2. Transport Demand Management
3. Actions that Transport for the North can take to decarbonise surface transport
4. Enabling travel via Mode Shift
5. Risks and Benefits
6. Conclusion

1. The Decarbonisation Challenge – an existential threat

The recent IPCC report has been described as a “code red for humanity”. The past five years have been the hottest on record since 1850. The recent rate of sea level rise has nearly tripled compared with 1901-1971. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58130705

According to a recent research paper, failing to address the climate emergency will lead to an estimated 83 million excess deaths by 2100, more than the entire population of the UK. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/deaths-global-warming-carbon-emissions-b1895169.html

The consequences of climate change include more extreme weather events, wild fires, droughts and disruption to food suppliers. Large areas of the planet could become uninhabitable, forcing millions of people to migrate elsewhere and significantly increase the risk of conflicts breaking out. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/climate-change-war-risk-increase-syria-isis-heatwave-drought-a7155401.html

The UK Climate Change Committee has been very clear “the utmost focus is required from government over the next ten years […] The 2020s must be the decisive decade of progress and action.” https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-The-UKs-path-to-Net-Zero.pdf

The Transport for the North Decarbonisation Strategy will be key to enabling the progress and actions necessary in the early 2020s to achieve or exceed the targets in the TfN Decarbonisation Trajectory, in particular the target to reduce carbon emissions by 55% by 2030.

2. Transport Demand Management

TfN’s strategy recognises that the 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 must be achieved mostly through mode-shift and demand reduction. In simpler language, we need to drive less. Transport for the North needs to focus on what it can do to enable this change to happen quickly.

Less driving at this scale will happen if and only if one or both of the following occurs.

• Driving fossil fuel vehicles is made more expensive to reduce overall demand and miles driven; and / or
• Road capacity is reduced leading to disappearing traffic.

Other actions, for example reducing and enforcing speed limits, may add to these but will not be sufficient in themselves. Investing in public transport, even making it free, is unlikely by itself to substantially reduce miles driven. https://www.dw.com/en/can-free-public-transport-really-reduce-pollution/a-42584328

TfN may wish to look at local authority air quality plans that have failed over many years to achieve legal limits for air pollution. The only effective measure to reduce air pollution on main roads has been clean air zones, implemented only after the UK government was ordered to meet targets by the UK High Court.

To reduce emissions by 55% there will need to be a similar or greater reduction in miles driven by fossil fuel vehicles. Real-world fossil fuel efficiency savings cannot be relied upon.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/no-improvement-average-efficiency-new-cars-four-years

This doesn’t have to mean a reduction in travel, or in the benefits of travel, if there is sufficient investment to enable people to use zero emission vehicles or to walk, cycle or use public transport instead. Walking and cycling are also cheaper and more healthy ways to travel.

3. Actions that Transport for the North can take to decarbonise surface transport

The draft Decarbonisation Strategy acknowledges that “demand-management and mode-shift policies that can be implemented quickly will be key” (page 46) and that “rapid action will be required across mode-shift, technological change and demand reduction on a significant scale” (page 49).

Measures need to be effective and need to be implemented immediately (within months). The Decarbonisation Trajectory (page 12) suggests that a 31% decrease from 26 MTCO2 to 18 MTCO2 is required by 2025. We do not have time to wait for further plans [PGA8], or an evidence base [PGA9, PGA11], or new appraisal guidance [PGA13] before starting to take action.

Transport for the North can lead the effort to decarbonise surface transport by:

• Leading on and advocating for the most effective decarbonisation actions as set out in the list below.
• Immediately stopping all investments in new roads that will increase capacity and would lead to an increase in miles driven if implemented, reallocating the budget to the measures set out in this list.
• Communicating the urgency, seriousness and strong scientific basis of the Climate Emergency so that no one is in any doubt as to what is required and why, and to build wide-spread support for taking action.
• Confirming a plan for how road capacity on the Major Road Network (MRN) can be reduced (“road diets”) so that there is a reduction in fossil fuel miles driven aligned with the Decarbonisation Trajectory. This might include reducing the number of lanes and/or changing traffic light timings at junctions to reduce vehicle throughput. (“Predict and Divide” instead of “Predict and Provide”.)
• Confirming a new set of speed limits to apply across the MRN to minimise emissions, and an approach for the enforcement of those speed limits to achieve the 7% emissions reduction set out in the TfN Strategy.
• Establishing a monitoring programme to evaluate progress on a monthly / annual basis and if necessary take further action if the Decarbonisation Trajectory is not being achieved.
• Supporting effective changes that could be made by Central Government to decarbonise surface transport, in particular road pricing and zero emission public transport, as well as limits on air travel.

The need to stop investing in new or larger roads is supported by the COP26 Universities Network Briefing, August 2021, which includes the recommendation to “Stop the road building programme, instead building strategic cycle networks and public transport.” https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_808253_smxx.pdf

The Welsh Government has already put a freeze on new road building projects for exactly this reason. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-57552390

The recent SNP, Green Party Cooperation Agreement also states “We agree that in the face of the climate emergency we need to shift away from spending money on new road projects.” https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-and-scottish-green-party-cooperation-agreement/

Increasing road capacity will always lead to more driving and more emissions. Reducing road capacity will lead to less driving and less emissions. http://rachelaldred.org/writing/thoughts/disappearing-traffic/

Emissions are not correlated with congestion. Congestion is what prevents more driving. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/06/urban-myth-busting-congestion-idling-and-carbon-emissions/

4. Enabling travel via Mode Shift

We have listed specific actions TfN could take quickly on the Major Road Network below. These actions will need to be largely completed quickly (within 2-3 years) to allow people time to adjust to new road layouts.

As TfN’s strategy sets out, three-quarters of car trips in the North are under 5 kilometres so many could easily be replaced by walking or cycling if safe direct routes are created, as could even longer trips using e-bikes.

Walking

• Improved crossings.
• Safe speed limits in urban and rural areas.
• Improved bridges and underpasses over rail lines and SRN roads to reduce community severance.
• Removing pavement clutter and taking action to prevent pavement parking.

Cycling

• Reallocating road-space on the MRN to create protected cycle lanes and junctions, especially in urban areas, with cycling facilities built in accordance with LTN 1/20 standards.
• Secure cycle storage and cycle hire at railway stations, with good access to/from the local cycle network. 
Examples of cycle parking: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/tag/cycle-parking/. Information about the Dutch OV-Fiets (rail) cycle hire scheme: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/tag/ov-fiets/
• Facilities to connect cycle cargo freight with rail at railway stations.
• Space for cycles on regional trains for mixed mode journeys.
• Intra-urban longer distance cycle routes connecting up nearby towns, as are common in the Netherlands. Trips up to 10km are easily possible using e-bikes. Examples of long-distance cycle route: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/tag/long-distance-cycle-paths/

In 2017, Utrecht built a new bridge at a cost of €25 million; contributing to a better, faster, and safer cycling network.

When the municipality commissioned a social cost benefit analysis of this project, the benefits were predicted to be €46 million.https://t.co/ZhmiZIqvrH pic.twitter.com/hvMzfcfRUA

— Dutch Cycling Embassy (@Cycling_Embassy) August 27, 2021

• Improved bridges and underpasses across rail lines and SRN roads to reduce community severance. Example cycling bridge (above). Source: https://twitter.com/Cycling_Embassy/status/1431210239244881924
• Cargo bike hire and try-out schemes for individuals, groups and small businesses.
• Reduced speed limits on unclassified rural roads.

Public Transport

• Dedicated no-car lanes on MRN roads.
• Grants or support for new zero-emission vehicles.
• Integrated ticketing.
• Increasing the catchment area for public transport by improving cycling access to public transport hubs.

5. Risks and Benefits

Risks

• Optimism bias in the future emissions scenarios, as happened with air pollution prior to ‘Diesel-gate’. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
• Continued investment in road building schemes that will lead to more driving and increased emissions.
• Failing to include effective demand reduction measures in the plan.
• Over-reliance on modelling vs trialling changes to confirm real-world outcomes are in line with expectations.
• Delays to implementation, not allowing sufficient time for people to adjust to new ways of travelling.
• Over reliance on Electric Vehicles as a ‘silver bullet’, and not considering the initial costs and emissions from manufacturing. See for example https://www.research.ox.ac.uk/article/2021-06-14-obsessing-over-electric-cars-is-impeding-the-race-to-net-zero-more-active-travel-is-essential
• Delays to implementation due to unnecessary ‘policy perfectionism’ or endless consultation.
• Delays meaning even greater restrictions are necessary, potentially increasing costs and disruption.
• Ineffective communications accompanying changes.
• Insufficient political leadership to overcome objections and make necessary short-term changes in the urgent timescales required.
• Insufficient investment in alternatives to driving, or supporting people to change.
• Lack of coordination with or delays by local authorities leading to some main road traffic diverting onto minor roads. Ideally Local Authorities should act quickly to implement low traffic neighbourhoods in advance of any changes to reduce capacity on main roads.

Benefits of decarbonising transport

• Finance / Economy – by enabling people to travel at the least cost wherever possible (walking or cycling) helping people on lower incomes and improving access to employment.
• Health – by enabling people to walk or cycle, improving public health.
• Environment – by switching away from transport modes that create pollution and damage the environment.
• Children – by providing safe streets for walking and cycling so children can be safe when travelling independently, especially to and from local schools many of which are located on the MRN.
• Safer Streets – by reducing speed limits, and switching from heavy, fast-moving, vehicles that can cause substantial harm to walking and cycling (or e-bikes) where there is much lower risk of harming others.
• Climate – as a result of the effective decarbonisation of surface transport.
• Reducing Community Severance – Improved crossings mean major roads and rail lines become less of a barrier to travel for people walking or cycling.

Conclusion

Thank you again for undertaking this important work and for the opportunity to comment on the Transport for the North draft Decarbonisation Strategy.

Action is long overdue. The Kyoto Protocol was 1997, the UK’s Climate Change Act was 2008, and yet transport emissions in the UK have barely changed since 1990. In 2019 transport was the largest emitting sector of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the UK, producing 27% of the UK’s total emissions.

Actions taken to date to decarbonise transport have not been sufficient. Business as usual is not possible.

Some people will no doubt say action is not required, despite the widespread scientific consensus and clear urgency to take action. Some of the excuses they will make have been listed here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-discourses-of-delay-are-used-to-slow-climate-action

The reality is that the vast majority of people in the UK and world-wide recognise that the Climate Emergency must be addressed. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/27/un-global-climate-poll-peoples-voice-is-clear-they-want-action

We hope Transport for the North will show the courage and leadership necessary to address the Climate Crisis and will put a plan in place to guarantee the Decarbonisation Trajectory is achieved or exceeded.

Yours faithfully,

SPACE for Gosforth.
www.spaceforgosforth.com

The post Transport for the North – Decarbonising Transport appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

From November 2020 to January 2021 Transport North East held a consultation on their draft transport plan for the North East up to 2035. This is the SPACE for Gosforth response.

We looked at the plan’s vision and objectives, and we looked at the schemes proposed. The vision talks about carbon reduction, health, reducing inequalities, safer streets and sustainable travel. The schemes include link roads, corridor improvements, capacity upgrades, addressing vehicle pinch points, dual carriageways and junction upgrades. These clearly don’t align.

We fully support the plan objectives, but the schemes need to be re-evaluated to select and expand those that support the objectives and reject those that do not.

Transport North East say they are working to “deliver game-changing transport schemes and initiatives.” and “to greatly improve the lives of everyone living or working in our region.” The current plan won’t do this, but we hope our and other’s feedback will be taken into account to produce a revised plan that will achieve the stated objectives.

Transport for the North East itself provides “strategy, planning and delivery services on behalf of the North East Joint Transport Committee (NEJTC)“, where the committee is made up of the region’s two Combined Authorities (North of Tyne Combined Authority covering Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland, and the North East Combined Authority covering Durham, Gateshead, Sunderland and South Tyneside).

Update 13 March 2021: Transport North East have produced their final plan for approval by local authorities. You can see the final plan and a “You said – we did” document explaining what changes have been made here.

The letter below is our group’s response to the original consultation in January 2021.

Dear Transport North East,

Re: North East Transport Plan Consultation – January 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the North East Transport Plan. It is extremely positive to see The North East Combined Authority and The North of Tyne Combined Authority working together on a single coherent plan for the region.

We welcome and acknowledge the need, as you say, to “deliver profound and lasting improvements that will shape the North East and its people for decades to come.” We are in the midst of a Climate Emergency, a health crisis made worse because of existing high levels of poor health in part caused by inactivity, and scandalously we have still have not met legally-binding targets for air quality that came into force in 2005.

Between 2010 and 2019, 511 people were killed and 6,450 people were seriously injured on the North East’s roads. These are not just statistics, they were mums, dads, children, friends and neighbours. Almost half of those killed or seriously injured on the region’s roads were under 35 years old. Change is needed, and it is needed quickly, by 2025 not by 2035.

“The truth about a region’s aspirations isn’t found in its vision. It’s found in its budget.”

We’ve looked at the plan’s vision and objectives, and we’ve looked at the schemes proposed. The vision talks about carbon reduction, health, reducing inequalities, safer streets and sustainable travel. The schemes include link roads, corridor improvements, capacity upgrades, addressing vehicle pinch points, dual carriageways and junction upgrades. These clearly don’t align.

Carbon reduction, improved health and more sustainable travel all point to less vehicle traffic in future, not more. Building for more traffic while at the same time forecasting less traffic is just throwing money away, and will lead to more emissions and poor health outcomes.

While we acknowledge many of the schemes included do support active travel and public transport, for a region of two million people they could be substantially more ambitious than proposed, and achieve benefits far more quickly if funds weren’t being diverted to expensive schemes to create unneeded additional vehicle capacity.

The vision should define the destination

The plan vision needs to establish and make tangible what the end goal is and start to build towards that, so people understand the destination rather than only seeing individual steps on the journey. This will support both community buy-in to the plan and provide better focus for the initiatives that make up the plan.

It is not hard to envisage what this would look like. As a minimum it would need to include:

• Accessible and inclusive local streets with pavements that are not cluttered or used for parking.
• A defined road network for essential vehicle journeys, with reduced capacity compared to now, as fewer journeys will need a vehicle in future when other better options become available.
• Local roads that are not part of that main-road network that can be used for walking, cycling, socializing and street play, but not for through traffic (low traffic neighbourhoods).
• Junctions designed to prevent high-speed collisions and speed limits set to ensure collisions do not lead to serious injury or death.
• A region-wide network of safe walking and cycling routes to connect homes to shops, schools, parks and other local destinations and which support inclusive cycling and allow children to travel independently.
• An efficient high-frequency bus network with good quality interchanges and integration with walking and cycling routes for longer multi-modal journeys.

These alone would substantially achieve all the plan objectives with money to spare. The question for Transport North East is how quickly it can move to achieve this vision, so that everyone who lives in the North East can start to see and feel the benefits.

Transport North East has work to do to demonstrate this is not a ‘business as usual’ transport plan.

Substantially the objectives in the plan do speak to the serious economic, climate, air quality, health and wellbeing issues that are today caused by road transport, and need to be addressed through changes to the transport system. Good intentions though are not enough to achieve good outcomes.

As we have said, many of the actual schemes proposed are very much business as usual.

We therefore want to challenge Transport North East to come up with a revised set of schemes, including those on the list above, that will demonstrably prove this is not a ‘business as usual’ plan.

To be genuinely transformational, and not just business as usual, the plan should very clearly:

• Enable the five of seven local authorities that have set a target to be carbon neutral by 2030 to achieve that by substantially decarbonizing the transport system by 2030.
• Achieve zero killed and seriously injured on the region’s roads by 2025. (This should be part of the safe, secure network objective, not hidden away on page 33.)
• Create safe networks of routes leading to a step-change increase in walking and cycling for local (< 5 mile) journeys throughout the region.
• Demonstrate that Transport North East and the constituent authorities can act with the necessary pace and urgency to make these happen, with substantial progress by 2025 or sooner.

There’s no such thing as a ‘two minutes late for work emergency’

There is a Climate Emergency. Poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK. Physical inactivity is responsible for one in six UK deaths.

Choosing how the budget is allocated is a moral and political choice. Transport North East can either deliver profound and lasting improvements by prioritising the budget to address transport poverty, health, climate, economy and environment, or it can build more link roads to make driving marginally more attractive for a few years for people who can afford it. Almost certainly it won’t be possible to do both.

Please choose wisely.

We enclose our response to the consultation questions below.

Yours faithfully,

SPACE for Gosforth

www.spaceforgosforth.com

SPACE for Gosforth North East Transport Plan Questionnaire Response

2. Are you responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation?

We are responding on behalf of the SPACE for Gosforth group, based in Gosforth in Newcastle upon Tyne. SPACE for Gosforth is a residents’ group with the aim of promoting healthy, liveable, accessible and safe neighbourhoods where walking and cycling are safe, practical and attractive travel options for residents of all ages and abilities. We are residents of Gosforth, most of us with families and we walk, cycle, use public transport and drive. SPACE stands for Safe Pedestrian and Cycling Environment.

6. Do we support the Vision Statement: “Moving to a green, healthy, dynamic and thriving North East”

Yes, we support the Vision Statement.

This needs to be brought to life and explained properly so people understand where the plan is, or should be according to the objectives, leading us. For example:

• Accessible and inclusive local streets with pavements that are not cluttered or used for parking.
• A defined road network for essential vehicle journeys, with reduced capacity compared to now, as fewer journeys will need a vehicle in future when other better options become available.
• Local roads that are not part of that main-road network that can be used for walking, cycling, socializing and street play, but not for through traffic (low traffic neighbourhoods).
• Speed limits set to ensure collisions do not lead to serious injury or death, and junctions designed to prevent high-speed collisions.
• A region-wide network of safe walking and cycling routes to connect homes to shops, schools, parks and other local destinations and which support inclusive cycling and allow children to travel independently.
• An efficient high-frequency bus network with good quality interchanges and integration with walking and cycling routes for longer multi-modal journeys

How much do you agree with each of the following objectives?

What do you think are the barriers to achieving each of these objectives?

The following are common barriers and / or risks that are likely to apply to all the objectives. We suggest these are included in a NE Transport Risk log to be tracked along with appropriate mitigations.

Governance and Leadership Risks

• Lack of political leadership and/or lack of alignment between political leaders.
• Lack of urgency to achieve committed timescales e.g. carbon neutral by 2030.
• Focusing on, and getting bogged down in, small incremental changes at the expense of the more widespread changes needed to achieve the objectives.
• Delays due to schemes not being initiated until the overall plan is agreed.
• Lack of clear prioritisation between objectives e.g. air quality limits need by law to be met ‘in the shortest possible timescale’ and the target for five of seven authorities is to be carbon neutral is 2030.
• Poor quality governance that means schemes, especially those that increase vehicle capacity, are implemented even if they don’t meet the NETP objectives.
• Failure to account for the longer-term impact of Covid in reducing demand for transport.
• Weak planning policies that lead to the creation of new car-dependant suburbs with no local facilities.
• Not exploring alternative revenue raising options for traffic demand management such as a workplace parking levy.

Risks relating to the selection of schemes

• Insufficient portion of the overall budget allocated to meet specific objectives.
• Too much focus on ‘encouragement’ rather than making changes to make streets safer to enable people to walk or cycle.
• Inappropriate allocation of the budget to the wrong schemes that either will not support the objectives or prevent budget being allocated to more effective, more strategically aligned, cheaper or quicker to deliver schemes.
• Over-reliance on traffic management changes, which are unlikely to achieve the objectives and risk inducing increasing traffic volumes and adding to pollution and emissions.
• A lack of measures to manage and reduce the demand for private vehicle travel.
• Promotion of headline-grabbing ‘mega-schemes’ that sound impressive but are less effective than using the same budget for a package of smaller measures.
• Continued over-reliance on traditional ‘predict and provide’ planning for new roads that assume increasing traffic levels even though the NETP objectives implicitly require that in future fewer vehicle miles will be driven than now.

Risks relating to Public Engagement

• Failing to make the case for urgent change through lack of, or poor quality public communications.
• Poor quality or overly-long consultations that delay implementation.
• Too much weight given to relatively minor objections, or issues that can be mitigated, compared to the benefits from achieving the plan objectives.
• Mixed messages vs other council policies e.g. free parking offers.

Risks relating to Implementation

• Over-reliance on modelling vs trialling changes.
• Lack of training and expertise within councils and suppliers to make the necessary change to move quickly from traditional vehicle-led design to people-led design of road schemes.

Further barriers and / or risks that apply to specific objectives are set out in the table below.

12. Are there any objectives you would have liked to see which are missing? If so, what are they?

Yes:

Better places – streets as places where we all live, play, socialize, exercise, shop & where people want to live.

13. Do you agree that individual projects will be required to submit Monitoring and Evaluation Plans?

Yes, we agree. The monitoring and evaluation plans need to assess whether schemes support achievement of the NETP objectives.

How much do you agree with the following policy statements?

31. Are there any comments you would like to make on the policy statements?

See table above.

32. Are there any policy statements which you think are missing?

Please see alternative proposals in the table above. In addition we would like to propose:

Active Travel – Streets are easier and safer to navigate for residents or visitors with limited mobility and for residents or visitors with disabilities or conditions for whom travel is a challenge.

Active Travel – There is good walking and cycling access to local community destinations including schools, shops, medical centres, work-places and transport hubs.

Active Travel – Streets are valued as places where people live, meet and socialise, and not just for travelling through.

33. What do you think of the timeline for the delivery of schemes up to 2035?

The pace of change in the plan is massively too slow and risks not achieving set targets especially:

• Achieving air quality legal limits ‘in the shortest possible timescales’.
• Achieving no fatalities or serious injuries on the regions’ road network by 2025.
• Achieving carbon neutral transport by 2030.

34. Are there any schemes which you feel are missing from this timeline? 


Schemes that support these urgent time-bound objectives should be prioritised and delivered early in the plan timescale. These can include:

• Widespread (region-wide) implementation of low traffic neighbourhoods and school streets.
• New main road crossings, in support of new safe walking and cycling networks.
• Narrowing lanes on urban main roads to 3m maximum width for improved safety for all users.
• Trial schemes to reallocate space on main roads to create wider pop-up protected cycle lanes.
• Review of speed limits to meet Vision Zero principles: 20 mph speed limits in cities, 40mph limits on rural minor roads.
• Clear Air Zones where air quality limits are currently not met.
• Using parking charges to manage and limit traffic demand in busy city centres, including workplace parking levies.
• New bus lanes, where space is not needed for walking and cycling facilities.
• Tightening entrances and exits from junctions to prevent vehicles from travelling through those junctions at high speeds, putting other users at risk.
• Better enforcement of traffic offences, including via the use of ANPR cameras.
• Improved winter maintenance of pavements and cycle lanes.
• On-street secure cycle storage (e.g. cycle hoops)
• Definition and implementation of a minimum viable cycle network that connects homes to major destinations and can then be expanded and improved on.
• Creation of a plan for a regional cycle network including traffic-free cycle links between adjacent urban areas e.g. Newcastle to Ponteland, Killingworth or Cramlington.

SPACE for Gosforth has previously submitted evidence-based suggestions for how to reduce carbon emissions to the Newcastle City Council climate change consultation, which can be found here: https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/evidence-about-climate-change/

SPACE for Gosforth has also completed a literature review to find what type of measures have evidence to show they are effective to reduce air pollution, which can be found here: https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/air-quality-what-works/

SPACE for Gosforth’s response to the Newcastle City Council Breathe Clean Air consultation, which proposes schemes to address air pollution in Newcastle can be found here: https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/tag/breathe-clean-air/

We would also like to propose the inclusion of this walking and cycling scheme by Regent Centre in Gosforth: https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/regent-centre/

35. Are there any schemes in our programme which you feel should not be included? 


Yes. Building for more traffic while at the same time forecasting less traffic is just throwing money away, and will lead to more emissions and poor health outcomes.

Link roads, corridor improvements, capacity upgrades, addressing vehicle pinch points, dual carriageways and junction upgrades are how we ended up with a climate crisis and illegal levels of air pollution. More of the same won’t address the climate crisis, won’t solve air pollution, won’t make it safer or more attractive to walk or cycle, won’t address transport poverty, and will further decimate local High Streets as people who can drive are incentivised to travel long-distances to out of town shopping centres rather than supporting local shops.

All the schemes that increase vehicle capacity and encourage more driving need to be re-examined to assess whether they will actually support the objectives or if there are better options including the use of traffic demand management to keep roads clear for those that need to drive most.

Schemes that should be re-evaluated and removed if not consistent with the objectives or if better options exist include:

• Schemes for new car parks, access roads and link roads,
• Additional lanes, dual carriageways, bypasses and any scheme that claims to improve ‘flow’,
• Junction changes designed to increase vehicle throughput, and ‘pinch point’ schemes,
• Changes to vehicle capacity made as part of ‘all user improvements’ or ‘strategic corridor improvements’, and
• Relief roads and new vehicle bridges.

36. Are there any other comments you would like to make? 


In our response to the NECA Walking and Cycling survey in 2017 we said the following, which is equally relevant to the NE Transport Plan.

The strategy [Plan] needs to recognise that every journey driven that could have been undertaken by foot or by cycle:

• Increases travelling cost for the person travelling, money that might otherwise have been spent in the local area.
• Adds to the overall cost of road maintenance.
• Worsens air quality and creates risks for other road users.
• Increases carbon emissions.
• Is a lost opportunity for fresh air and exercise.
• Creates additional demand for parking which means less land available for housing and other more productive uses.

Likewise for every neighbourhood designed to prioritise traffic over place we find:

• Children unable to play outside
• Teenagers not able to travel independently
• Older people stuck alone in their home
• And a community weakened through lack of on-street social interaction.
• Local shops and services diminished because of competition from out of town shopping centres.

Whether or not these are part of the thinking for the transport strategy, or part of its aims, these are the real life outcomes. Nor are these just words. Tens of thousands of people die early each year due to poor air quality near roads. Many more die due to other conditions and illnesses related to how we travel. For example “regular cycling cut the risk of death from any cause by 41%, the incidence of cancer by 45% and heart disease by 46%” (https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/cwis2017/)

By prioritising walking and cycling, the NECA Strategic Transport Plan can deal with air pollution, it can reduce social isolation, it can improve choice for how we travel and make neighbourhoods more accessible for those with reduced mobility. It can reduce road injuries and deaths and reduce the fear that people feel when travelling on foot or by cycle. It can enable children’s independence so they can travel to go to school or play outside with their friends. It can enable people to travel to work and make them feel better when they get there. And it can align individual and community-wide incentives to ensure the transport system as a whole is as efficient as possible.

We hope that Transport North East will seize this opportunity and put in place a robust and well-funded plan to address all these issues as a matter of urgency.

For reference, we have previously responded to two NECA consultations and a consultation by Transport for the North.

The 20 year transport manifesto for the North East, in April 2016 – https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/neca-2016/

The July 2017 NECA Walking and Cycling survey – https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/neca-survey-2017/

Transport for the North Strategic Transport Plan April 2018 – https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/tfn_consultation_questions/

The post North East Transport Plan Consultation – January 2021 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

Photo: SPACE for Heaton. Councillor Nick Forbes at the Council’s Climate Change event

In January SPACE for Gosforth submitted a response to the Council’s Call for Evidence relating to Climate Change. We haven’t blogged about Climate Change before, mostly because resolving how our children get to and from school safely, and minimising the effects of polluted air on ourselves and our families, has always seemed more pressing.

Much of what we have done though, about making streets in Gosforth and Newcastle safe for children, and cleaning up the dirty air, will also help reduce carbon emissions. In this blog we look back at some of our earlier blogs that are relevant to climate change.  We have arranged the blogs in the same themes as we used in our response to Newcastle City Council’s call for evidence.

Call for Evidence about climate change – January 2020

Urgency

In paragraph 1 of our Climate Change response we said “Taking urgent action now, starting in 2020, will ensure Newcastle’s residents get the maximum benefit from the transition to low-carbon transport.” It is also critical if the Council’s target is to be met.

The Council’s target is for the city to be carbon neutral by 2030.  Newcastle City Council has previously had to meet targets for reducing air pollution – and their failure, and the Government’s failure, to meet those targets raises questions over their ability to achieve the new climate change target. The timeline we set out in our blog Fixing Air Pollution – at a Snail’s Pace shows that despite air quality limits being absolute and set in law, substantive work to meet air pollution limits through the implementation of a Clean Air Zone still hasn’t started over ten years after air quality limits were suppose to be achieved.

Stopping current Council activities that will lead to increased green house gas emissions

Sections 6-10 of our response was about stopping current activities that will lead to greater emissions. These should be fairly straight-forward for the Council, and could be an early test of the Council’s commitment to the target.

• In our blog Junctions West of the City – Comments by 6 October 2019 we explained how the Council’s recent proposals, focused almost entirely around how to move more vehicles, would only add to carbon emissions. The Council has money to implement changes to help people travel but alternative approaches are possible prioritising more sustainable transport options that would avoid, or at the very least minimise, extra emissions.
• In Horrible Haddricks and Horrible Haddricks – part 2 we explained how the Council’s design, with vehicle flows prioritised throughout and walking and cycling pushed to the edges, would neither support the Council’s policy on air quality or climate change.  Because of the way it is designed, it is also unlikely to have any great effect on encouraging more people to cycle.
• In Must do Better, we asked the Council to stop forcing people walking and cycling to share a narrow pavement during the Killingworth Road roadworks.
• In our blog Alive After 65 & Live Long with Clean Air we looked at how subsidising parking incentivises increasing traffic and vehicle emissions.

A common theme here is the prioritisation of private vehicle traffic, and in particular travel time for private vehicle traffic, over other road users. Over time, this has meant that driving has become more attractive compared to walking, cycling or public transport, and as a result the city’s emissions from transport are much higher than they could have been.

Reducing the need to travel using the Council’s Planning Policy to prioritise net zero emissions

Sections 20 to 26 of our response was about reducing the need to travel. This is not likely to be something that can be done quickly, but preventing new developments from being dominated by roads and trapping people in car-dependency will be important and the planning rules to support that will need to be put in place quickly.

• Development locally should be in accordance with the local authority’s local plan. Part of this in Newcastle is the still not yet finalised Development and Allocations Plan (DAP). We provided detailed input to the DAP consultation outlined here Development and Allocations Plan (Comments by 16 November 2018) and here Pedestrian and Cycle Movement – Comments by 20 November [2017].
• SPACE for Gosforth has also responded to consultations about protecting local parks and green spaces: Protecting Open Spaces – comments by 20 November 2017. We have provided further background on the planning system and how sites are allocated for housing in our blog South Gosforth Green – comments by 25 September [2017]. Permission was granted for building at South Gosforth Green, despite it being contrary to the Council’s own Open Space policy at the time.
• In A Busy Citizen’s Guide to the Planning System we shared Blue Kayak consultancy’s helpful guide to how the planning system actually works.
• In Poor Planning means Bigger Junctions? we looked at a planning application at Gosforth Business Park for new homes, and showed why such poor designs will force people into car dependency when an alternative design would reduce the climate impact and give people living there a much greater choice for how to travel.
• In Why is the Town Moor special? we examined what the environmental assessments for the Blue House proposals revealed about the Town Moor: information that needed to be taken into account for any proposals for its future.
• Generally there is a trade-off between place (making somewhere nice) and movement (how to get there) and often Councils get this wrong. Gosforth High Street is a case in point with four lanes of traffic in some places and narrow pavements made even smaller by bollards to protect people from moving vehicles.  We looked at this in one of our first blogs in September 2015:  We love Gosforth High Street, but …

Reducing emissions by reducing vehicle traffic and miles driven

Petrol and diesel vehicle emissions can only be reduced at the scale and speed required if in future there will be fewer journeys. Sections 27 to 45 of our response set out proven approaches such as road pricing and reducing road capacity as ways to achieve this.  We have also looked at these issues in a number of blogs.

• In our blog about Remembrance Sunday 2019, Gosforth Remembers 2019, we got a chance to see, albeit briefly, what Gosforth High Street could be like without traffic. The quiet, with only distant traffic-noise, added considerably to this solemn occasion.
• In our Air Pollution consultation responses Breathe – In Gosforth and Breathe – In the City we shared proven ideas for how to reduce pollution. Air pollution is a slightly different challenge to greenhouse gas emissions as, for air pollution, it is the local concentration that matters rather than the overall level of emissions. So air pollution can be resolved by redirecting traffic or moving queues from one junction to the next, but neither would help address Climate Change.
• The blog Air Quality – What Works? summarised options proposed for addressing air pollution and which were effective. In it we shared the Government’s analysis that traffic management aimed at improving flow of traffic could actually make things worse.
• In East Gosforth – Streets for People we set out some ideas for how to reduce traffic on the residential streets east of Gosforth High Street, which in some cases are being used as a cut through by people on longer journeys. Implementing the same ideas across the city would be a powerful and quick way of reducing vehicle miles driven, while improving quality of life while retaining access by car for anyone who needs it.
• Possibly the most effective thing the Council has done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the city, those perhaps not deliberately, was to close Killingworth Road for roadworks. In Roadworks, Air Quality and Disappearing Traffic we used Council data to show that there were approximately 12,000 fewer vehicle journeys every day (almost half a million over a year) as a result of the closure.  This is an often observed phenomenon known as ‘disappearing traffic’.
• In our 2017 blog on Garden Village we set out a process for how to work through the pros and cons of various options to make Garden Village a safer and better place to live, which could also lead to reduced carbon emissions. Delays to schemes like these that could be implemented quickly, just means faster deeper cuts will be needed in the future.

Supporting alternatives to driving

About half of our response, sections 46 to 91, was dedicated to alternatives to driving.  We have explored these issues in a number of blogs, as might be expected given our focus on walking and cycling. These blogs include:

• Proposals for Regent Centre based on an idea in an earlier letter we published relating to improving cycling and walking facilities near Eagle Star House.
• Inclusive Cycling in Gosforth and Inclusive Cycling in Gosforth- the OK, the Bad and the Ugly, both being about making Gosforth accessible for cycling for people with disabilities.
• A Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan for Gosforth, a proposal based on  the Government’s mandated local infrastructure plan process.
• In Your Streets – Ideas for a Better Gosforth we asked local residents to come up with proposals based on the Your Streets – Your Views, Survey Results to make local streets safer and make it easier to walk and cycle in Gosforth.
• Comments on a proposed Salters Road New Crossing – comments by 23rd December [2018]. As of January 2020 we still do not know if or when this might be put in place.
• Input to North Tyneside Council’s consultation on Forest Hall Public Realm in 2018. Forest Hall would be within easy cycling distance of Gosforth if safe routes were available.
• Snow and Ice – our letter to the Council about maintaining pavements and cycle paths through the winter.
• Our input to the BEIS Electric Vehicles Inquiry – March 2017 and May 2018 update
• Building a Safe Cycling Network for Gosforth, setting some objectives and seeking feedback from local residents about what changes are needed to create a safe cycling network in Gosforth.
• National Walking Month – May 2017, seeking people’s input on changes that would make Gosforth better for walking. Do please feel free to add any more ideas via the comments.
• Zoe the Guide Dog reviews Salters Road Junction, a joint review by SPACE for Gosforth, RNIB and Guide Dogs that led to the installation of additional tactile paving and markers on the cycle racks next to the Gosforth Hotel.
• It’s not Amsterdam – it doesn’t rain as much for a start… It really doesn’t, and Newcastle is also warmer than Copenhagen (another big cycling city) during the winter.
• Pedestrian Priority on Gosforth High Street set out our proposal for continuous pavement crossings along Gosforth High Street to give people walking extra priority.
• Electric bikes in Gosforth Central Park, where we borrowed some e-Bikes from the Cycle Hub and gave them a test run in the park.
• In Lots of children want to cycle to school, but hardly any do. How do we make space for child cycling in Gosforth? we reviewed some research by Dr Rachel Aldred showing which streets / routes in Gosforth would be considered safe for children (not many as it turns out).
• Everything wrong with our High Street starts here describes a ‘blind walk’ by one of our members, giving a very different perspective on Gosforth High Street.
• In 2015, the Council sought feedback on some proposals for Newcastle City North – Comments required by Sunday 8 November [2015]. These included changes on Percy Street, which are now being implemented though without the promised cycling facilities. The other proposals are still being talked about but in early 2020 seem to be no further forward.

Co-benefits should be sought and highlighted

As one of six guiding principles explaining how we had structured our response we talked about ‘co-benefits’.

“Modal shift away from driving towards the lower carbon alternatives presents an opportunity to deliver co-benefits e.g. public health, a stronger and more resilient local economy, strengthened communities, reduced road injuries and deaths. These co-benefits should be sought and highlighted.”

We have written about the benefits of active travel a number of times. Perhaps the most comprehensive of our blogs is The Case for Healthy Streets, which sets out the beneficial effect of active travel on rates of cancer and heart disease, how it combats negative health effects associated with inactivity and obesity, and of course the fact that walking and cycling, unlike most other forms of travel, are not responsible for air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions.

Other blogs that look at this issue include:

• In Traffic Crash Injury 2019 we summarised a year’s worth of ChronicleLive news articles about people in Newcastle upon Tyne who had been hurt or killed as a result of a traffic collision.
• Exhaust fumes ‘killing babies’ was the title of a Chronicle article in May 2004 – that’s not a typo, it really was 16 years ago when we knew about the nasty effects of air pollution, and yet we are still to meet air quality limits now. The blog lists all the air pollution related articles we could find locally, over 130 and still growing with the vast majority being in the last few years.
• “We feel unsafe” shared a letter from children attending Archibald First School about their experience walking to school.
• Billion Pound Issues on Gosforth High Street set out the six big negative impacts of too much vehicle traffic that together cost the UK between £38bn and £49bn pounds a year in 2009. Ironically greenhouse gases has, at the time, the lowest associated cost. The other five were delays, collisions, air pollution, inactivity and noise.

The Future

The Council has committed to producing a plan to achieve net-zero in Newcastle upon Tyne by 2030. Many of the proposals and ideas we have shared could be implemented quickly and easily for relatively little cost as part of that plan.

By implementing these proposals the Council could also meet its policy objectives of cleaner air, safer more accessible streets and improving choice for how people travel.

The post Climate Blogs appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

Trees, people and zero-emission transport.

In April 2019 Newcastle City Council declared a Climate Emergency. This included a pledge to make Newcastle upon Tyne carbon neutral by 2030, taking into account both production and consumption emissions. The inclusion of consumption emissions means that the city’s target includes emissions from the manufacture of goods and services (such as food, clothing or electronic equipment) consumed by people living in the city.

In October 2019 the Council then announced the formation of a Climate Change committee to advise Cabinet and Council on the actions and resources required to meet the 2030 target, and a Net Zero task force to provide technical input to the committee.  The Council will also work with other local authorities to set up a Citizens Assembly made up of residents from across the North of Tyne area.

The Climate Change Committee will publish a report in March 2020, which will set out how the city will meet the net zero target by 2030. This will be informed by the Council’s call for evidence  for how to tackle climate change. 

This blog sets out the SPACE for Gosforth response to that call for evidence, including eight ideas for quick wins that can be implemented immediately. Getting started quickly will be important, not least that by 31 January 2020 when the call for evidence closed the Council had already used up 303 (7%) of the 4,290 days available between 3 April 2019 when the target was set and 31 December 2030.

The post Call for Evidence about climate change – January 2020 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.