Are the cost-of-living crisis and decarbonisation really natural enemies?

It’s been a tumultuous few weeks in transport planning circles. The UK Government has made some critical decisions, using a general narrative that Net Zero policies are not compatible with the financial pressures currently faced by households. 

Deadlines for the banning of new internal combustion engines have been pushed back, HS2 has been cut, low-traffic neighbourhoods are being reviewed, a ‘Plan for Drivers’ has been published, and funding for new road schemes has been intimated by the new ‘Network North’. All this while the new Local Transport Plan (LTP) guidance, last issued in 2009, has still not been published.

The Government’s approach goes against the general consensus in our profession that decarbonising transport is the great challenge of our age. We know we need to rapidly decarbonise, and we know that simply shifting today’s activities to electric or other zero-emissions fuels will not do so anywhere near fast enough.  We know the next generation of LTPs need to be low-carbon and focus on the journey to Net Zero, but right now, any plans or policies which actively promote less car use have become a political hot potato.

How do we square the circle?  Can we continue to bring forward policies and plans which are actively seeking to decarbonise transport in LTPs whilst also acknowledging the cost-of-living crisis? These are tricky questions and will likely be a focus for the industry for some time to come.

Making it clearer that we can lower consumer spending on transport if they don’t need to use their car

As an industry, we’ve known for a while that we need to inclusively plan for places and the people who live, work, and play there. 

When we plan for vehicles, we tend to accommodate peak travel (and the peaks of that), favour commuting (only 19 percent of all trips) and building more highway capacity, which induces demand and exacerbates problems. This biases a transport system that works for wealthier and more mobile groups in society, but further discriminates against others who have poorer mobility. This is especially the case for those who struggle to afford owning and running a car but feel that they have to because their other options are so reduced.

When we plan for people and places, we tend to ask different questions and view issues and opportunities in a different way. What kind of place do we want to live, work in and visit? Hadn’t we better ask the people who live, work, or visit somewhere what they want and need in the local community? 

In recent times we’ve been using the framework of “avoid-shift-improve” to try to group together different policies and interventions which could reduce car use and contribute to decarbonisation.  This focused on the fundamentals of avoiding the need to travel (particularly by private car) and reducing vehicle kilometres and their emissions, as well as shifting mode and preparing for more zero-emission vehicles or the “improve” dimension. 

This approach allows us to embrace triple-access planning, which considers transport, virtual and spatial or physical access. It facilitates “trend shifting” before “mode shifting”.

In my view, this framework is absolutely valid, but narratively it would perhaps benefit from a language change. As it stands, it’s very easily misinterpreted (wilfully or otherwise) to see this framework as being anti-car,  whereas, in fact, it’s ‘pro-people’!  The terminology we use needs to be seen to support people to overall spend less on transport in their everyday lives, with the added benefit of reducing carbon emissions.

Co-design is key

If we move to planning for people and places, it follows that co-design is at the heart of this approach. It is vital that we take people ‘on the journey’ so that the benefits of plans and policies are well understood and not left to misunderstanding by either good or bad faith actors. 

Knowing who lives, works and visits a community and how to reach all groups and not just the ‘usual suspects’ is critical for identifying travel barriers and opportunities, as well as wider requirements and aspirations for a local area. It is only through local engagement that we can identify an overgrown footpath or a congested junction that may be affecting journey decisions. 

Online engagement platforms can be used to survey, poll and provide maps that can be pinned with issues and opportunities to support early engagement. These can then be carried forward to full statutory consultation, with the platform working as a compendium of evidence, a journey of how previous engagement has informed plan development, and other useful resources. 

If you only engage local communities at the stage of statutory consultation, then it is not enough, it is not co-design. One option is to establish demographically representative citizens’ panels and identify local community groups that represent the diversity of an area. Steer’s work in Southend-on-Sea has helped to garner a range of more nuanced views on bus and active travel priority options and bike and scooter hire schemes. Engaging primary and secondary schools and further education colleges in East Sussex to understand the relative priority of different objectives showed overwhelming support for the same priorities as senior groups and disability groups. Many local authorities have access groups which should be engaged. 

Using these methods, we can bring in communities and decision makers alike to creating a next generation LTP. 

Quantify impacts with the right tools

Being able to evidence challenges, the pace of change desired and required, and the impacts of different options through further quantitative assessment can help make the case for change. However, the analysis and tools developed by planners and engineers are not typically designed with community engagement and co-design in mind. In particular, scheme and strategy appraisal does not lend itself to quantifying potential savings to household spending. 

With the right analytical tools, we can present and test different scenarios and options in a 'safe' environment. Calculators and playbooks can get us some of the way but do not typically make trade-offs or assess embedded carbon. With Steer’s Urban and Regional Dynamic Models (and ‘lite’ versions), challenges can be captured quantitatively, and scenarios and option can be tested in (near) real time. What we might call multi-criteria assessment, equalities impact assessments, and assessment of social and distributional impacts can be presented in an interactive way. This allows communities to identify themselves, understand impacts quickly and modify or ‘gamify’ options to optimise impacts.

Recognising when to deploy a policy-informing tool rather than a project or scheme-based model is important for meaningful engagement. It can also be quicker and cheaper to operate than relying on expensive strategic transport models. 

How can Steer help? 

The challenge of decarbonising transport and travel are stark. By embracing the tools that facilitate better evidence, better engagement and bring partners on a step-by-step journey, our LTPs can be presented in a clear and accessible manner, bringing communities along with us.

Steer is ready to help all local authorities design and implement a next generation LTP that is vision-led, evidence-based, resilient, innovative and low-carbon. Our expertise and experience can help you to deliver the LTP your community deserves. 

Steer is offering a free facilitated workshop session tailored to help any local transport authority to assess what’s needed for your LTP, regardless of what stage you’re at in the process.  To talk through your local transport plan requirements, do not hesitate to get in touch with Nicola Kane (North), Simon Statham (Midlands) or Steven Bishop (South).