RTPI response to the Transport Select Committee inquiry on active travel in England

RTPI response to the Transport Select Committee inquiry on active travel in England October 2018 Comments on the benefits and risks of active travel, and the extent to which they are properly understood by the public and Government 1. The benefits of active travel on health are very clear and have been included in numerous government strategies and advice notes, including the DfT Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy and the Public Health England (PHE) paper on Spatial Planning for Health. We believe that the benefits of active travel far outweigh the risks. 2. Other benefits from active travel do warrant further investigation. This includes the impact of increased investment in active transport infrastructure on tackling social disparities within city-regions and responding to the challenges of an ageing population. As active travel is generally the cheapest transport option, interventions which increase accessibility by walking and cycling could have a significant impact on equality. New electric bikes (e-bikes) are also extending the age range for cycling, but are underused in the UK. Here, cycling accounts for only 1% of all journeys amongst people aged 65 and over, compared to 23% in the Netherlands, 15% in Denmark and 9% in Germany 1. 3. While government strategies recognise the benefits of active travel, implementation remains a challenge. Evidence shows that many people are only able to achieve recommended levels of physical activity through daily active travel 2, but only an estimated 67% of men and 55% of women meet the targets for 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week (with lower levels recorded among the elderly, those on lower incomes, and those who are overweight and obese) 3. And in their 2018 progress report to government, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) warned that current government policies were insufficient to increase walking, cycling and the use of public transport to the levels needed to reduce car usage and associated greenhouse gas emissions, along with the associated benefits to public health, air quality, reduced noise and congestion 4. 1 Jones et al. 2016. Cycle Boom: Design for Lifelong Health and Wellbeing. Available from: bit.ly/2olud7z 2 Barton, H. 2009. Land use planning and health and well-being. Available from: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.008 3 Health & Social Care Information Centre. 2013. Health Survey for England 2012. Health, social care and lifestyles: Summary of key findings. Available from: content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/pub13218/hse2012-sum-bklet.pdf 4 Committee on Climate Change. 2018. Reducing UK emissions: 2018 Progress Report to Parliament. Available from: theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ccc-2018-progress-report-to-parliament.pdf 1

4. This suggests that the strategic objectives of multiple government departments are not sufficiently aligned in support of active travel, as described in more detail below. Comments on the effectiveness of the Department for Transport (DfT) in setting the strategic objectives for active travel and in working with other departments that have relevant responsibilities 5. Effective working between the DfT and the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), along with other departments, is needed to ensure that housing growth is coordinated with measures that enable significant modal shift to healthy, spatially efficient and low-carbon modes of transport. There is no room for complacency on this issue, as demonstrated through our Location of Development project. This analysed the location of permissions for over 220,000 new homes in 12 English city-regions between 2012 and 2017, and found that only 17% were within easy walking or cycling distance of a railway station 5. We have also supported the Transport for New Homes project, funded by the Foundation for Integrated Transport, which visited a number of major housing developments and urban extensions and found that many are not located or designed to facilitate active modes of transport 6. 6. These research projects both highlight systemic factors which can lead to housing development in locations and forms which do not seem consistent with an increase in active and public transport. These are complex and include changes to planning policy, a lack of resourcing for local authority planning departments 7, fragmented governance structures, the appraisal and funding regime for major transport infrastructure, and cycles with land and property markets. In a situation where national calculations of housing need are resulting in significant pressures for housing growth within and around urban areas, and where transport systems which are stretched or at capacity, we are concerned that the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not go far enough to prevent car-dependent patterns of development and to maximise accessibility by public and active modes of travel 8. Meanwhile, we see that balance of transport funding at the national level skewed towards major infrastructure, with the Road Investment Strategy receiving 15.2 billion over five years for motorways and major roads, compared to 316m of dedicated DfT funding for walking and cycling. The continuing freeze on fuel duty similarly does nothing to reduce private vehicle use and limits a source of tax revenues which could be spent on public and active transport infrastructure. 7. Better cross-departmental working is needed to ensure that growth is coupled with measures to reduce travel demand, maximise the efficiency of existing transport infrastructure, increase provision and capacity of public and active transport infrastructure, and promote relatively dense and compact patterns of development. This can be achieved 5 RTPI. 2018. The Location of Development. Available from: rtpi.org.uk/locationofdevelopment 6 Foundation for Integrated Transport. 2018. Transport for New Homes. Available from: transportfornewhomes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/transport-for-new-homes-summary-web.pdf 7 English local authority planning departments have seen an average 14.5% reduction in resourcing between 2006 and 2016. See: rtpi.org.uk/media/2908296/investingindeliverysenw.pdf 8 RTPI. 2018. Briefing note on the 2018 NPPF. Available from: rtpi.org.uk/media/2945680/revisednppfbriefingnote.pdf 2

through proactive planning so that ambitions for better safety, better mobility and better streets can form the basis of development and infrastructure proposals, rather than being retrofitted in at a later date. But wider measures, such as road user charging, could also help to ensure that new and expanded road infrastructure does not work against these objectives by improving access to more peripheral and remote locations. In our recent paper on Settlement Patterns, Urban Form and Sustainable Development we note that improved road connectivity can generate negative outcomes for active travel if it leads to a) relocation by residents and businesses to more peripheral locations, and b) new low-density development on cheaper peripheral land. Both of these trends can increase traffic volumes, congestion and air pollution in urban centres which makes active travel less attractive, and result in housing and employment sites at densities which are less conducive to active travel 9. 8. Active travel also requires that there are sufficient local facilities and services, such as food stores, pharmacies, GPs, schools and parks, which are accessible by foot from all residential areas. However, this is not just the responsibility of transport and land use planners and their respective government departments, but relates more broadly to the issue of local government funding, which is needed to ensure that facilities like parks, libraries and community centres are kept open, and the extent to which decisions over the location of schools and healthcare facilities are integrated with wider transport and land use concerns. 9. An inter-departmental group has been established between DfT and MHCLG to address the need for greater integration between land use planning and transport, and we strongly encourage greater collaboration on this issue. To support this, the RTPI is also working with the Chartered Institute for Highways and Transportation (CIHT) and other bodies to develop a new guide on the integration of planning and transport. Comments on the balance of responsibilities for active transport between central Government and local bodies and whether the current arrangements achieve an appropriate balance 10. Transport decision-making and funding in England is highly centralised, and has been coupled with an emphasis on localism and austerity for the past decade. This has inhibited the development of integrated strategies for housing, employment and transport at the cityregion scale. However, the devolution agenda has more recently led to the emergence of new mayoral combined authorities and various non-statutory strategic partnerships across England, and this creates the space to replicate successful approaches of the London Mayor s Transport Strategy and the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy. These demonstrate how political leadership, stable funding regimes and properly-resourced strategic transport authorities can play a greater role in transforming urban infrastructure and managing technological change in way that reconciles the conflicting interests of different transport users and promotes active travel. 9 RTPI. 2018. Settlement Patterns, Urban Form and Sustainable Development. Available from: rtpi.org.uk/media/2822766/settlementpatternsurbanformsustainability.pdf 3

11. While transport investment at the national level often skews towards large-scale inter-urban infrastructure, this new wave of new sub-regional bodies should help to make the case for greater investment in intra-urban transport and the maintenance of existing networks, both of which are needed to boost in active travel. Central government can play a supportive role by ensuring that combined authorities and other strategic partnerships are sufficiently resourced and incentivised to develop strategies which can: Plan new development in locations which minimise the need to travel, regulate parking provision and secure links to public and active transport networks Integrate demand management on the transport network, for example through emissions or congestion charging zones or other forms of pricing which internalise the costs of transport Integrate land-use and transport planning with decision-making for other infrastructure programmes with spatial implications, such as healthcare, education, and urban regeneration 12. The prioritisation of pedestrian and cycle infrastructure is likely to remain the most equitable, healthy, low-carbon and spatially efficient solution for many dense urban areas. As mentioned earlier, enhancing the provision of both public and active travel infrastructure will often require complementary measures to restrain demand for car use and parking in urban areas, which will need the support of government (e.g. by funding and support in establishing charging zones, especially in areas where these have stalled). Over time, a planned approach will also be needed to consider the most appropriate use for road and parking spaces rendered redundant by the transition towards shared and automated mobility. 13. Good design guidelines for walking and cycling infrastructure have been published by some of these top-performing local authorities, by groups such as Sustrans, and in the Manual for Streets. Government can assist in arranging mentoring between local authorities and/or LEPs with good plans, strategies and design guidelines for walking and cycling, and those without. Similarly, there is a range of emerging good practice on using sensors and modelling to understand flows of pedestrian and cycle movement and map Active Travel Accessibility Levels (ATALs). 14. As with Local Transport Plans between 2000 and 2010, a funding reward or uplift within Integrated Block or Local Growth Funding could be offered to areas with good plans. Central government could improve coordinating between the various stakeholders who need to be involved in delivering an increase in active travel. Clear responsibilities need to be communicated to: Local Planning Authorities; Local Highways Authorities; Local Traffic Authorities; Education Providers; Clinical Commissioning Groups; Passenger Transport Executives/Integrated Transport Authorities/Combined Authorities; Transport for London; Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs); Sub-national Transport Bodies; and Highways England. 15. On a broader note, there is not an industry or technology for walking, so pedestrians risk being excluded from the discussion around transport in the Modern Industrial Strategy. Intervention will be necessary to ensure that people walking are not disadvantaged by the drive to be world leaders in transport industries and technologies like autonomous vehicles. 4

Comments on the implementation of the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) so far 16. We support the government s ambition to ensure that walking and cycling becomes the natural choice for shorter journeys or as part of a longer journey. However cycling currently accounts for under 2% of all trips made by people in England, so the intention to double cycling activity by 2025 will only increase this to 4% - still lower than several other European countries. This target should be made more ambitious. Meanwhile the objective for walking seems only to reverse its decline. This should also be made more ambitious. Are fundamental planning issues which need to be addressed as part of an any approach to active mode travel? 17. The main planning issue is to ensure that planning departments are sufficiently resourced and incentivised, and have the best available evidence, tools and powers, to work collaboratively to shape the built environment so that it maximises accessibility by active and public transport. National transport infrastructure decision-making and investment needs to support this. Key spatial relationships 18. The RTPI paper Settlement Patterns, Urban Form and Sustainable Development describes how factors related to the shape of the built environment can facilitate or inhibit active travel. For example, higher levels of residential density, public transport density, street connectivity and public parks have been shown to be positively correlated with physical activity, and have the potential to contribute nearly 90 minutes per week of physical activity, equating to 60% of the recommended NHS target. There is a close relationship between residential density and accessibility, with larger local populations providing patronage for a wider range of local shops and services in convenient locations, within easy walking or cycling distance. Higher levels of residential density and land use mix around public transport stops also helps to make high-frequency services financially viable, and increases the number of public transport stops at the city-region scale. This in turn improves accessibility across the entire network, creating a virtuous cycle that reduces car dependency, increases levels of public and active transport, and reduces the number of physically inactive door to door trips. For example, London has higher than average levels of walking and cycling, and is the only city in England where the majority of journeys are not made by car. This is enabled in part by high public transport density, which means that a single stop can be used to access to a wide range of destinations. 19. Studies suggest that there is no upper threshold to the levels of physical activity that can be achieved by increasing residential and transport density. However, this does not mean that higher residential densities should be pursued in isolation. Multiple studies have shown the need for complementary measures to improve street connectivity, including increased land use mix and small block sizes, along with the provision of high quality green space to offset the negative impacts of increased density. 20. Levels of motorised travel can be reduced through policies which promote compact settlement patterns with higher levels of density, land use mix and accessibility. There is 5

strong evidence that these urban forms facilitate public and active transport when compared to low-density and dispersed developments, and thereby reduce overall vehicle use. 21. However, by increasing population density, intensification can also increases the amount of vehicle trips in a given area, leading to congestion and exposing a greater amount of people to polluted air. In the vast majority of urban environments, the health benefits of walking and cycling are even thought to outweigh the potential health risks from increased exposure to air pollution, especially if they replace car journeys. However, it is important to recognise and mitigate the trade-offs between intensification and air pollution. As mentioned earlier, policies to promote sustainable modal shift require complementary measures to restrict car movement, limit parking spaces in developments, and locate key facilities like schools and hospitals in places which can be accessed without a car. Green infrastructure can help to filter pollutants in street canyons, where high buildings limit air circulation. 22. Planning for growth needs to follow spatial principles which encourage accessibility by sustainable modes of transport, both active and public. This means that new development should be concentrated in a small number of strategic locations, prioritising brownfield sites within large existing settlements or immediately around them, before expanding smaller towns, villages and rural areas. In order to promote sustainable mobility and reduce congestion, any development outside of large existing settlements should be located alongside well-served bus corridors and in close proximity to rail stations and other transport interchanges, in order to encourage patronage and reduce the use of the strategic road network. Similarly, any new sustainable transport infrastructure, like rail and bus routes, should be located based on their potential to connect existing car-dependent settlements to major concentrations of jobs and services, and to support new public transport-oriented development patterns. 23. To encourage sustainable mobility, housing needs to be located in close proximity to public transport nodes. A distance of between 250 to 300 metres is recommended for local bus services, rising to 500 metres for stops which provide high frequency services to centres of employment and key services. This can also be considered in terms of housing density, with recommended average levels of 50-100 dwellings per hectare (dph) rising to 100-200 dph for developments located around important public transport nodes. In order to reduce the need to travel, developments should also contain a mixture of uses, including essential community facilities which are within walking distance of housing, and buildings which can support a range of different uses. 24. At the neighbourhood scale, urban form can encourage sustainable travel through the design of fine-mesh grid networks, and by limiting the use of cul-de-sacs and other street layouts with poor levels of connectivity. CABE guidance suggests that, when coupled with improvements to walkability and public transport accessibility, parking spaces should be set at a maximum of one per household, and ideally lower. Integrated decision-making related to social infrastructure 25. The physical activity of children is a specific concern. Only 22% of 5 to 15 year-olds are thought to meet the recommended target of 60 minutes moderate physical activity per day, and over a third of children are overweight or obese by the time they leave year. One way of tackling this is by encouraging children to walk to school, which increases both daily 6

physical activity and overall physical ability, and supports better learning and academic performance. 26. Between 1975 and 2012, the proportion of secondary school pupils that walk to school decreased from 55% to 38%. A key factor driving this trend is the growing distance between homes and schools, caused in part by a shift towards more dispersed, low-density and cardependent urban forms, but also by a move towards increased school size, greater choice over school selection, and rising household affluence. Factors such as connectivity, land use mix and higher residential density are also thought to influence whether children walk to school, along with socioeconomic factors and perceptions of safety. 27. The objective of increasing the percentage of children who walk to school is important. It would be useful to set a target and then support delivery through dedicated funding, or otherwise to draw out the potential for programmes to meet the objective within existing funding sources. 28. Significant changes are also being proposed and made to educational provision. When educational facilities open, close or reorganise, this should be seen as a critical time to set or review targets and actions for walking and cycling. Possible projects and actions in this area include walking buses, parent shelters, safe routes to schools, curriculum inclusion, and walking challenges and competitions such as Beat the Street. 29. The NHS is also moving a greater proportion of routine diagnostic procedures, treatments and care for chronic diseases to facilities in local communities, while English local authorities have been given responsibility for public health. This creates the possibility for greater integration between planning and health, and consideration of how urban form can promote access to healthcare facilities. Compact, high density urban areas allow healthcare services to be provided at lower per capita costs to a greater number of people, provided that measures are in place to enable access by public transport, walking and cycling. It also increases the possibility for healthcare facilities to be co-located alongside other services, including education, social care, retail and leisure. Appraisal 30. The Committee should also explore whether the WebTAG transport modelling and appraisal methodology, which primarily assesses the capacity of schemes to reduce congestion, is designed to promote modal shift towards walking and cycling. 7