Transport part 2- Traffic restrictions

Downsides of the conventional approaches to attempting to reduce car use

Many road safety/environmental policies that involve tightening traffic restrictions are designed to make driving more of a chore in the hope of boring and frustrating drivers into using their cars less.  The theory runs that if people think of driving as a chore, then they will cut out their recreational car journeys, and drive only when they feel that they absolutely have to in order to get from A to B.  It is tied in with the belief that all recreational car use as "unnecessary" because "we need to work but we don't need to enjoy ourselves".

As this agenda is very unpopular with most of the general public (as John Prescott and his associates found out the hard way near the end of the 1990s) most pressure groups try to hide this particular agenda and refer to more popular agendas such as creating a more pleasant living environment for people in residential areas.  But the agenda is still very much there, it is just that campaign groups tend to try to disguise it, rather than being up-front about it like the UK Labour government was back in the John Prescott era.

This is also designed to improve safety through restricting everybody to legislate for the reckless minority, a policy which is inefficient, but will most likely succeed in improving safety significantly if taken to enough of an extreme, so it is one of those where we risk sleepwalking into larger-scale restrictions than we originally bargained for.  It is quite popular with road safety groups because as I have noted in other blogs, punishing innocent people by association with offenders is often perceived as being "hard", even though it is "hard" primarily against the wrong people.

This approach will cause far greater social costs than "merely" stopping car enthusiasts from enjoying driving.  It will threaten the custom of recreational outlets that depend on customers who travel to them as part of spontaneous car trips, especially in rural areas.  It will threaten various aspects of the car industry, particularly those which relate to making cars good to drive, and these changes risk negatively affecting the economy.  Frustrated and bored drivers may end up more prone to lapses in concentration and road rage incidents, while when traffic is heavily restricted, and the onus is placed more on drivers to allow for inconsiderate behaviour of other road users, this may lead to more risk-taking from cyclists and pedestrians, thereby offsetting safety gains.  With many people still likely to feel that they "have" to drive under these policies, quality of life will reduce if most people find travelling from A to B to be a stressful chore.  I also don't foresee it being particularly effective at reducing congestion and pollution.  In many cases, reduced car use is at least offset by increased congestion per unit amount of car use.

Beneficial use of traffic restrictions

I am convinced, though, that traffic restrictions can be beneficial to society as a whole if used selectively and in the right places for case-specific reasons, rather than as a blanket means of trying to discourage car use.

I often read that a reduction of urban speed limits to 20mph and associated traffic calming will "create a more pleasant living environment and improve quality of life for everyone".  If the speed limit cuts are carried out selectively, i.e. we get a network of residential zones with speed limits of 20mph, and a network of nearby roads with speed limits of 30 or 40mph, then it may well work that way.  In that case, traffic is encouraged to use the relatively unrestricted routes and stay out of the residential zones, and so the residential zones benefit from less traffic generally.  Some types of traffic calming relating to road design, such as cobbled streets, "shared space" (where pedestrians, drivers and cyclists share the same routes) and "filtered permeability" (where we create a wider density of pedestrian/cycle routes than routes for vehicles) can be effective at encouraging drivers to give pedestrians and cyclists higher priority within these zones.

Similar measures are also very useful in town and city centres.  Generally speaking, towns and cities tend to, by default, have large traffic densities near the centre, because that is where most attractions and job locations are held, so it is desirable to keep traffic out of some areas in order to prevent the central parts of towns and cities from becoming a large mass of gridlocked traffic.  For example, going for a leisurely shop in a city centre is generally more attractive to pedestrians if large areas of the shopping area are pedestrianised rather than adjacent to busy roads with queues of cars and buses galore.

Non-beneficial use of traffic restrictions

But, quite often, the agenda is more, by stealth, to try to get speed limits on most, or even all, urban roads reduced to 20mph or less.  Indeed, I quite often see major routes cut to 20mph, with speed bumps at regular intervals, often as a knee-jerk reaction to an incident where someone got killed by a boy racer doing 60mph in a stolen car, while the neighbouring residential zones still have 30mph limits.  In that case, saying that it will "improve quality of life for everyone" is nothing more than lies and propaganda.  If there is not a widespread network of 30mph/40mph zones nearby, there is far less of an incentive for motorists to use those roads instead of taking short-cuts through the 20mph home zones, and so while traffic speeds may reduce, traffic levels will probably not.  Too strong a blanket 20mph policy will also result in increased bus journey times outside of the busiest times of the day.

Plus, in residential areas and even on major routes, authorities are often liberal in their use of speed bumps and chicanes to calm traffic, rather than the cobbled streets/shared space type approaches that are commonly used in town and city centres.  These are not effective at improving local quality of life, as they quite often add to traffic congestion and the increased "stop-start" nature to car journeys that results tends to reduce fuel efficiency and thus increase local pollution levels.  They are often an inconvenience to cyclists as well as car drivers.  Their primary intention is not to improve local quality of life, it is to discourage car use and improve safety by restricting everybody to legislate for the minority.

While I see a case for "shared space" design in designated pedestrian/cycle-friendly zones, in which road traffic levels are typically low, I am against its use outside of those zones.  Its main advantages are that it can improve safety and encourage greater priority for cyclists and pedestrians by creating uncertainty over who has right of way, and thus reducing "risk compensation" (people are more careful because the perceived risk is higher) but the downsides are that the uncertainty can make travelling down those streets more stressful for users of all forms of transport, especially for the blind and partially sighted, and that if applied too widely (as it is effectively a way of restricting car use) they bring the usual disadvantages associated with curbing the beneficial aspects of car use as well as the negative aspects.  On relatively busy and/or high-speed routes the social downsides of "shared space" soon begin to heavily offset the benefits.

The image of children playing out in the streets

The reduction in children playing out in the streets is a problem but it is wrong to blame this squarely on traffic speeds.  Many parents are afraid of their children being mugged by child-molesters nowadays, and are afraid that if their children are allowed to slip through their fingers, they will be done for child neglect.  Back in the 1970s, traffic speeds through urban areas were not generally slower than they are today (indeed, traffic speeds have generally reduced in the past decade thanks to tightening traffic restrictions and enforcement of speed limits).  The key was that there were fewer cars around and there was less paranoia over the possibility of children being run over and/or kidnapped and abused by sexual predators.  I suggest in any case that a selective "home zones" policy would help to promote communal semi-pedestrianised residential areas that would encourage more children to play outside and would be more effective than en-masse traffic calming and 20mph zones.

Country lanes

In the UK, there is a safety problem where accident rates on country lanes have not dropped as significantly as they have in urban areas.  There is therefore a strong temptation for a "stealth" reduction of all 60mph zones from 60mph to 50mph, and then from 50mph to 40mph.  It is not uncommon to see 60mph limits cut to 40mph to legislate for idiots who race down them at 90mph in stolen cars and killed people, or to legislate for those who drive at a safe and legal 50-60mph down them but then continue at 50-60mph through nearby villages.  In some cases we have nearby minor country routes that could far more easily justify a 40mph limit, but are still at 60mph.  In a large majority of such cases, I think stronger enforcement of the existing speed limits would have been more effective at saving lives, and would have avoided penalising innocent people, but again we have the problem that punishing innocent people by association with offenders is often perceived as "hard" and failing to do so is often seen as "soft".

Country lanes are the type of roads where people traditionally get the greatest enjoyment out of driving in a safe and legal manner, and are also the lanes that often serve recreational and tourist outlets in rural areas.  I can see a widespread 40mph limit policy heavily eroding the ability for people to enjoy driving on those roads without breaking the law, and with an emphasis on longer journeys that are more of a chore, there is a risk that many motorists would skip those journeys and thus erode the custom that these tourist places need in order to justify continuing as businesses, especially in tough economic times.

I have often heard people say, "Wouldn't we all be happier if people allowed more time for their journeys and weren't always in a rush?"  There is a strong case for that argument in itself, but it is wrong to infer that this scenario will be achieved by lower speed limits.  If anything, where lower speed limits lead to increased journey times, it may well increase the extent to which people, particularly those who lead busy lives, feel pushed for time and thus stressed and in a rush.

Transport part 1- Reducing dependency on cars

Fundamental problem

In the UK, in common with many other parts of the developed (and, increasingly, developing) world, we are too dependent on cars for transport, resulting in pollution and congestion and non-sustainable consumption of resources.  This raises the question, how do we reduce our dependency on cars and move towards a more balanced and sustainable transport system?  My feelings on this issue are rather at odds with the conventional ways of thinking.

I am in the rare position of having a strong environmental/climate change background, and being a non-driver (unable to drive at all due to visual impairment) and often lamenting the lack of good alternatives in our car-dependent society, but at the same time sharing many tendencies of car enthusiasts (e.g. I often enjoy being taken for a ride as a passenger, and watching Top Gear and Formula One racing), so I think, or at least hope, that I should be good at seeing both sides' points of view on these issues.

The advantages of cars

The main advantages of cars are social and recreational, rather than simply getting from A to B.  They are associated with personal freedom and convenience, and the ability to go where you want, when you want, for both drivers and their passengers.  They are particularly useful for people living in areas with inadequate public transport, most especially rural communities, and for some people with mobility problems.  Spontaneous car trips contribute heavily to tourism and the custom received by recreational outlets, again especially in rural areas.  Many also derive some enjoyment from the physical process of driving and/or being driven as a passenger, making travelling from A to B a source of enjoyment in itself, rather than a chore.  Car enthusiasts are provided with a hobby and Top Gear remains one of the most successful TV programmes in the world.

The process of getting from A to B can, in itself, be achieved more efficiently given a sufficiently reliable public transport system, particularly in urban areas, and by walking and cycling over short distances, so I don't subscribe to the "Cars are useful primarily for getting from A to B" philosophy.

The disadvantages of cars

Well-established disadvantages include the issue that they contribute heavily to fossil fuel consumption and pollution of the environment, increase noise levels, and can potentially be lethal, especially when they get into the wrong hands.  However, the main reason why the disadvantages of cars often outweigh the plus points these days is because we have become over-dependent on them.  Many of us view cars as a necessity rather than as a luxury, and there are many people who get no reward from the physical process of driving, and find it stressful and would much rather not drive, but feel that they have to.  Becoming too dependent on cars has resulted in car use escalating at the expense of alternative methods of transport and has resulted in high levels of traffic congestion, which accentuate many of the disadvantages and negate many of the advantages of the private car.  In the UK, this can partly be blamed on poor planning policies in the 1950s/60s/70s when we closed down many of the railways in preparation for becoming a car-based society.  Those who have disabilities that prevent them from driving legally, or don't have the confidence, are often disadvantaged because of the lack of reliable alternatives to the car in our car-based society.

Biased cost-benefit analysis

Many academic studies look at methods of transport only in terms of the "means to an end" benefits of getting from A to B, and overlook their social and recreational advantages.  Most environmental groups are aware of this and advocate putting greater emphasis on the social and recreational benefits of walking, cycling and taking public transport, and I have seen a few Green Party manifestos talking of "factoring in the 'true' social and environmental costs of driving".  They argue that promoting cycling more will be beneficial to society even if it results in a small increase in fatalities.  Up to this point, I am completely with them.

However, I am used to the same groups of people arguing that the social and recreational benefits of cars and driving should be ignored, or even considered as a negative factor.  This can stem from the idea that if an activity is frowned upon, then it is particularly bad if people are deriving enjoyment from it, or the idea that since we want people to use their cars less, it will complicate our argument if we then factor benefits of cars into consideration.  I recall reading one academic study which misleadingly expressed the social/recreational pros and cons of driving as one motorist's personal benefits versus the cumulative negative impacts of all of the cars on the roads.  It is understandable, but leads to considerable anti-car bias, and thereby, promotes policies that are more anti-car than pro-environment, pro-safety or pro-walking/cycling/public transport.

Meanwhile, the work-related benefits of driving are generally overstated, because of the misconception that everything relating to work is essential, for we all need to work (up to a point).  A significant amount of work-related driving (though not all of it) could easily be avoided at little or no cost to anybody, such as through car-share schemes, public transport and teleworking arranagements.

My recommended approach

I believe that we need to go for much the opposite approach, taking steps to reduce our over-dependency on cars, and pushing us towards a culture where cars are primarily viewed as a luxury, rather than a necessity, with public transport being the default for longer-range "A to B" journeys and walking and cycling for shorter journeys, and cars being primarily used for recreational journeys.  Many German towns and cities have managed to get close to this model, but the key is that it requires an integrated public transport system, and good facilities for walking and cycling, and good advertising to raise public awareness of the facilities.  Some work-related car journeys can be cut by car-sharing, use of minibuses, and teleworking arrangements, and we could also do with transporting a higher percentage of our freight by rail.

Another advantage of making car use more of a luxury and more recreation-based is that traffic congestion will end up playing more of a limiting role- if we use cars too much, congestion increases, making driving less enjoyable, resulting in less car use, and less congestion, and we end up with a self-sustaining equilibrium which prevents our roads from becoming excessively congested.  When we are dependent on cars for transport, this equilibrium is harder to achieve as many people feel that they "have" to keep on driving even when the roads become gridlocked.

There will be cultural barriers to this, and some education and advertising will be needed.  One problem that we will have in the UK is that even if we do achieve an integrated public transport system, it may be difficult to encourage the public to widely use it, because of the negative image that public transport currently suffers from.  Another issue is the lazy tendency of some to drive around the corner to the local shops when they could walk there in just 5-10 minutes- again, addressing this will require a cultural shift, but that cultural shift won't be achieved by clamping down against the recreational side of driving.

Thus, when it comes to the "congestion" side of driving, I think that more use of the "carrot", rather than the "stick", is advisable, as the "sticks" have a habit of particularly hitting the aspects of driving that are the most beneficial to society, while the "carrots" are often more likely to succeed in reducing the negatives.  

This may not be the case with the "pollution" side, however, where we may need more tax-based incentivising (both for drivers and car companies) to provide "carrots" to encourage use of more efficient fuels, while implementing "sticks" to penalise those who produce and drive around in gas-guzzlers.  A significant problem in the UK in recent years has been the move towards diesel rather than unleaded petrol, which has been misleadingly presented as saving a lot more on pollution than it actually does, and as a result traffic pollution levels have not fallen as far as expected.  However, we must still be careful not to implement "sticks" that heavily neutralise many of the benefits that cars provide to society.