Reports:

Study of European best practice in the delivery of integrated transport: report on stage 3 - transferability

8. Summary & Conclusions

Findings from Benchmarking

8.1 The benchmarking exercise demonstrated that the UK is lagging behind Europe in some aspects of integrated transport policy outcomes, particularly on:

• car dependency - we have the highest car modal share and this has been increasing at the fastest rate in Europe;
• congestion - our urban and inter-urban roads are amongst the most congested in Europe; and
• use of sustainable modes - we make little use of public transport and we have amongst the lowest levels of walking and cycling (about 20% of trips, compared to 50% in the Netherlands and 35% in Germany).

8.2 However, we are currently performing well on certain aspects of road safety; UK fatality rates are the lowest in Europe (equal with Sweden) and our death rates amongst children and older people are also very low. Though the UK's record is poorer on fatality rates for pedestrians, cyclists, and users of powered two-wheelers, and we also have a relatively poor overall injury accident rate.

8.3 At the local level, performance varies between cities, but within the sample of world cities, London has the highest supply of public transport (vehicle kms per capita) and the strictest application of parking restraint measures (spaces and prices), however it has a relatively low public transport density and the highest fares and so car mode share is high.

8.4 Our large cities have amongst the highest car modal shares, despite low car ownership, and amongst the lowest public transport shares, and these are falling in contrast to some similar sized overseas cities. We have 'average' fatality rates and fairly good air quality.

8.5 Our medium and small cities generally offer a lower choice of travel options, with a reliance on buses, and so we have high car modal shares, despite having mid level car ownership and the highest private transport costs.

Factors Influencing Performance

8.6 The benchmarking and case studies suggested that the variation in progress towards attaining policy objectives, both between countries and within countries, is due to a number of influences. These can be categorised as background factors that may well be beyond the influence of transport policies, differences in the magnitude and treatment of common threats that are affecting all European countries and integrated transport policy factors^[26], as shown in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 - Key Factors Affecting Progress Towards Policy Objectives

Background Factors	Common Threats	Transport Policies
Timing - Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and other overseas countries have been applying integrated transport policies for longer than the UK. Local characteristics such as the physical environment, climate, demography and cultural issues can have a bearing on the effectiveness of delivery mechanisms and public acceptance. Economic standing - competition increases pressure for car access to increase attractiveness. Land use density - high densities reduce the need for cars and increase cost-effectiveness of public transport. Staggered hours - support more efficient use of private and public transport networks. Risk and perceptions of crime - affects use of sustainable modes.	Increasing car ownership - has affected all parts of the EU, though rates stagnated or fell in Scandinavia in mid 80s due to high taxes/economic downturn. Suburbanisation - many cities have experienced outward migration to lower density suburbs and hence increased reliance on the car. Increasing car dependency - higher car availability, more disparate journeys, poor conditions/high accident risk for pedestrians/cyclists, personal travel preferences, etc have led to growth in car modal share, particularly in the UK. Economic development policies - highway access perceived to be important. Higher public expectations - improvements in car design exceed evolution of public transport.	Segregation of road space - measures to give priority to more space - efficient and sustainable modes. Lower speed limits - 30kph limits on non-strategic roads improve safety, conditions for non-motorised travel, and the local environment. Quality public transport - accessible infrastructure, well-maintained fleets, reliable services, etc promote social inclusion and increase public acceptability. Institutional arrangements - a regional authority can co-ordinate transport policies across local authority boundaries; a single public transport authority can better plan and integrate services. Choice of travel modes - viable alternatives, including mobility initiatives e.g. car pooling/sharing are needed to discourage car use. Marketing and promotion - to raise awareness of services.

8.7 Contextual and cultural factors can affect the delivery of integrated transport policies, for example, high density, mixed land uses lead to shorter trip lengths (as evident in Barcelona, particularly) and more walking. Flat terrain tends to encourage cycle use (as seen in Achterhoek, Munich and Graz), however, significant increases in cycle mode share have been achieved in Stuttgart, which is particularly hilly.

8.8 These factors can also affect the transferability of best practice. For example, in historic towns (such as Graz) there is greater awareness of the need for conservation and so the reallocation of road space away from cars has been more publicly acceptable. This means that implementing the same type, scale and intensity of transport policies in one city is unlikely to deliver the same outcomes in another.

Best Practice & Transferability

8.9 The case study areas were chosen on the grounds that they perform better than other cities in their category on several indicators, to ensure that certain outcomes were not being achieved at the expense of others. Data limitations precluded benchmarking transport outputs and outcomes in rural areas across Europe, however, a rural case study was chosen from the recommendations of our overseas facilitators and some limited comparisons of qualitative and basic quantitative information.

8.10 The following section summaries the best practice themes identified through the case studies and the key issues that need to be addressed to assist policy delivery.

Reprioritisation of Road Space

• 20 mph zones - there are no apparent restrictions on local authorities introducing 20 mph zones in the UK, as the guiding core legislation is already contained in the Road Regulations Act, 1984 and associated regulations covering signage and traffic calming. There are currently over 450 20 mph zones in a variety of area types, including parts of city centres, residential streets and outside schools, however, the key difference is that they have not been implemented on an area-wide basis.

  Transferability is likely to depend heavily on strong commitment from the local authority to introduce potentially controversial blanket 20 mph speed limits on all non-strategic roads, sufficient funding to cover consultation, implementation and - importantly - enforcement.

• Greater pedestrian priority - some of our cities have successfully implemented pedestrianisation schemes to restrict car access, provide better facilities for shoppers and other visitors and improve the local streetscape.

  Amongst the key issues to address are the impacts on trade, particularly the perceptions that car access is essential to economic viability, and measures to make better use of public spaces with, for example, appropriate infrastructure (seating, shelter, lighting and security measures) and a wider range of amenities. This would require overcoming potential legal and institutional constraints on the use of premises for food and drink (A3) sales, licensing that controls (and possibly restricts) the animation of public spaces through markets, street performers, street trading, etc.

  Strong local political leadership is needed to front such schemes, along with complementary measures to reduce central area traffic flows and retain accessibility and extensive marketing of the improvements. Other crucial factors include investment in increasing the coverage, quality and operational hours of public transport (especially in medium and small cities where levels of service tend to be lower) to provide a viable alternative for motorists at all times of the day and evening.

• Better provision for cyclists - all UK cities are progressing schemes to improve conditions for cyclists, however, overseas cyclists can make use of 30 kph streets, cycle lanes on roads and segregated lanes parallel to busier/faster roads, in addition to routes through parks and pedestrian priority areas. Lanes tend to form a network of routes throughout the urban area leading to key destinations. There is good provision of cycle stands and low levels of street crime.

  Significant investment in segregated, continuous networks and marketing is crucial if we are to significantly increase cycle levels. This should be accompanied by efforts to improve public attitudes towards cycling.

Public Transport

• Greater co-ordination - all the case study areas demonstrated higher public transport modal shares than the UK, despite higher car ownership, partly through the provision of carefully planned routes, integrated timetables and common tariffs which made public transport easy to use.

  The key issues to address to permit the delivery of this in the UK include the 1998 Competition Act, which prevents operators from delivering greater co-ordination and integrated ticketing, constraints on the potential for Quality Contracts, such as schemes being subject to Government approval so they could take some time to establish and limits on their duration, and difficulties in local authorities raising revenue funding.

• Improvements in quality - One of the striking features of all of public transport systems in European cities is the quality of the operation and the public transport product, which has largely been achieved through high levels of investment and revenue support, service monitoring and responsiveness to customer needs and preferences.

  There is potential for improving service quality in the UK through, for example, local authority investment in shelters, passenger information, lighting, seating, etc, assistance to bus operators to invest in bus fleets, trains, improvements in the production and provision of passenger information.

  There is also potential for easing interchange between modes with new infrastructure, and promotion of service initiatives such as bus-rail links and taxi sharing (legalised under the 1985 Act) and rail feeders (as in the Netherlands) though this is currently not a clearly defined role for local authorities.

  There is also a need to address the salaries within the transport sector, as this affects operators' ability to recruit and retain staff (many are running with a 10% shortfall which has a knock-on effect on reliability), and the calibre of those attracted to jobs and individual's morale.

• Increased affordability - there is currently little potential for influencing commercial fares, and tariffs on supported services tend to be set at similar rates to local commercial services. Local authorities have control over concessionary fares schemes, and the case studies showed that children travel at much lower fares elsewhere in Europe (for journeys to school and at other times), though reductions for pensioners and the disabled are generally comparable.

Integrated Institutional & Funding Arrangements

• Regional planning and co-ordination - in many European countries regional authorities provide a bridge between national policy formulation (including infrastructure investment of national importance) and implementation of local transport. This had a significant impact on co-ordination and integration over the whole journey to work area, which often covers local authority boundaries.

  Current limitations on the role of regional planning in the UK stem from Development Plans and Local Transport Plans (LTPs) not being legally binding, the tendency for a 'bottom-up' approach to regional planning caused by LTPs being the main bidding document for funding, and the lack of any statutory regional authority with funding, and co-ordination of regulatory responsibilities.

• Strategic public transport authorities - all the case study areas had a single body which brought together all of the bodies responsible for public transport to agree common policies, plan routes, manage common fare tariffs, produce passenger information, etc. These authorities have been successful in increasing public transport co-ordination and quality, and have contributed to increased patronage and level of public satisfaction with services.

  Fundamental changes to the institutional and regulatory situation would be required to set up bodies with the same powers and responsibilities as the overseas authorities. In London and the metropolitan areas, Transport for London (TfL) and the Passenger Transport Authorities/Executives carry out some of roles with respect to buses (though the PTEs do not have responsibility for planning commercial routes and they can only encourage multi-modal ticketing through voluntary agreement). However, mainline rail services are the responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority and outside the metropolitan areas, there are no comprehensive bodies responsible for all aspects of public transport.

  The potential for co-ordinating bus services is limited because of deregulation and competition policies, discussed earlier, and other constraints such as resources. Other issues that would need to be overcome include differences in ownership, as parts of the public transport networks now belongs to the private sector, conflicts in policies between the local authorities within the urban area covered by the new authority, and a lack of support from transport operators that currently enjoy commercial freedom.

• Increase in spending - comparisons show that the UK has lagged behind our European neighbours in respect of transport investment and also spends less on revenue support. This has contributed to fewer travel choices (provision of rail-based transport is much greater in overseas medium-sized cities, in particular) and lower standards of service and infrastructure.

  European authorities have had a fundamentally different regard for public transport, seeing high levels of investment and subsidy as necessary to maintain and enhance service levels to discourage car use and retain fares at socially optimal levels. Whereas the UK approach has focused on the liberalisation and privatisation of the sector, with the implicit (and occasionally explicit) objective of reducing support.

  However, there are indications that the level of transport expenditure in the UK is now moving more towards matching that elsewhere in Europe. The projected increase in funding will see an almost doubling of LTP expenditure in 2001/02, compared to previous years, and commitments to further rises in allocations in future years, though there are a number of potential constraints. These include effective deployment of funds brought about by conflicting policy objectives (such as limiting free school transport to 'designated' schools in the UK, in contrast to more inclusive overseas approaches) and cultural or social factors which may mitigate against the delivery of key incomes, despite substantial increases in financial resources (for example, different attitudes to public transport and cycling between the UK and overseas).

  Another major issue that needs to be overcome is the pressing, and worsening, skills shortage in transport planning and project implementation in the UK that affects our ability to deliver integrated transport schemes.

Mobility Concepts

• Levels of commitment - Achterhoek, Graz and the German case study areas demonstrated much greater commitment to influencing modal choice and increasing mobility travel choices with widespread provision of travel information and support for initiatives such as car sharing, car pooling, bike rental, etc.

  In the UK, the Government has made funding available for local travel co-ordinators and a lot of similar schemes are currently underway. The key lesson from overseas is the emphasis that is being placed on new travel initiatives. A major issue that needs to be addressed in the UK is the public's attitude towards public transport, cycling and car sharing that are constraining the potential success of new initiatives.

Rural Transport

• Demand responsive transport - in addition to greater regional planning, co-ordination in public transport and investment in infrastructure and fleets (mentioned above), this is the main area for transferability to the UK.

  The main issues to address are investment in a more hi-tech approach to co-ordinating and timetabling services by computer which makes the system much more efficient and, ultimately, cost effective, cultural attitudes among potential users and local authority officers to perceive the taxi concept as equivalent to scheduled public transport, and promotion at the national level to dissemination of best practice information and at the local level to encourage patronage.

Conclusions

8.11 Overall, the types of integrated transport policies exhibited overseas are not fundamentally different to the good practice already being demonstrated in the UK.

8.12 The main differences relate to policy delivery mechanisms:

• the regional and city-wide approaches to planning and operations which facilitate greater levels of co-ordination;
• the scale of investment in transport infrastructure and revenue support for services;
• the area-wide coverage of low (30kph) speed limits and cycle networks that improve road safety and encourage take-up of walking and cycling; and
• the commitment to encouraging new mobility initiatives.

8.13 The policy interventions and investment plans contained in the Integrated Transport White Paper and 10 Year Plan provide a good platform for the UK to move towards the sorts of outcomes that are being achieved overseas. But it is clear that a step-change is needed in the quality of transport provision in the UK, especially in our large and medium-sized cities if we are to begin moving up the league tables.

---

26: A great deal of widely-accepted 'good practice' in integrated transport is currently evident from UK local transport strategies. The table aims to highlight areas where there are notable differences between the case study areas and their UK comparators, either in the policies applied or scale of implementation.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]