ATE0009

Written evidence submitted by University of Liverpool 

We are Planning academics, based in the department of Geography and Planning at the University of Liverpool.  Our research covers active travel and, most frequently, cycling within that.  Our research has been funded by numerous funding councils, and has been published widely.  In our written evidence, we will summarise our main findings from those research projects that are relevant to the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry.  This primarily relates to research on the Emergency Active Travel Fund and other immediate COVID-related responses, the 15/20 minute city, and our experiences with community co-design and consultation.

Our central message is that whilst there is clear evidence that active-travel interventions where achieving their goals, they were reliant on – and sometimes undermined by – political decisions taken locally.  In this way, we argue that the Government’s ambitions for active travel are at risk if not supported by clear political leadership that provides robust support to local authorities.

Analysis of Emergency Active Travel Fund Phase 1 (Funder: DecarboN8)

We were funded by DecarboN8 to conduct an analysis of the first tranche of Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) Schemes[1].  This analysis centred on Liverpool and Wirral (part of the Liverpool City Region).  In practice this reflected our research expertise, and prevailing COVID-related restrictions on travel.

The project conducted video-based analysis of EATF interventions, accompanied by interviews with residents and local bike shop workers.

Our video analysis showed an at-times coherent, and at-times disjointed network.  Generally, we found that ‘straight line’ travel was broadly of a good standard for a standard bicycle.  However, we frequently found that EATF interventions became problematic at junctions (e.g. traffic lights and roundabouts.  In some cases, a cyclist would find a lane suddenly ending, with no sense of direction, and often forced to interact with moving traffic.  In some cases, we found that interventions were not suitable for specialised bikes (e.g. tricycles, trailers etc), and would not meet LTN 1/20 standards.

With regards to bike shop-workers, we found that the COVID-19-related restrictions caused unprecedented demand for both new bikes, parts and repairs/workshop time.  Commonly, bike shops could not meet this demand. 

This represented a potential turning point for active travel in urban areas[2], and suggested that active travel merely required the correct conditions (i.e. safe conditions) to be realised.

Support for Emergency Active Travel Fund Tranche 2: Analysis

Across Summer 2020, we were actively engaged in supporting the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority in preparing a submission for EATF Tranche 2.  Specifically, this support provided identification, mapping and analysis of potential routes.  Our approach utilised DfT’s Rapid Reallocation of Road-space tool as a primary driver, and considered this against deprivation, transport provision and employment.

Our analysis identified over 30 potential routes across Liverpool City Region.  A proportion of those subsequently made it into LCR’s successful Tranche 2 application.

We note, with some regret, that many of those routes which were to be funded by DfT are yet to appear – nearly 3 years later.  In this way, our chief recollection is that the ‘emergency’ element of the ATF has been squandered.

Understandably, we observed how many of the route identifications were also tested for their local political support.  Consequently, a number of schemes did not proceed.  This underscores the absolute importance of local political buy in, and suggests that regardless of the tools provided centrally, in the current climate they are not enough to progress action if the former is lacking.

Co-Design of Interventions (Funder: DecarboN8)

A second DecarboN8-funded project considered how planning techniques could incorporate real-time sensor monitoring to co-design interventions[3].

This project was conceived as a direct response to the ‘bikelash’ observed in the rollout of other active travel related schemes during 2020 and 2021 (e.g. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, Pop-up Lanes).  We deployed two lamp-post sensors in the Toxteth area of Liverpool in Early 2022 to monitor traffic count, speed and direction.  The scheme also was fortuitous in covering an Emergency TRO intervention made by Liverpool City Council which installed a segregated cycle lane in each direction.

Through our sensor monitoring we were able to determine that:

-          The ETRO had effectively halved motorised traffic on the intervention road.

-          The ETRO effectively doubled cycling rates against the background modal share.

-          Speeding remained a major issue on the road with in excess of 95% of all motorised vehicles exceeding the speed limit.

Liverpool City Council reported to us that the sensor-data was also useful in changing resident-views of the scheme.

Nonetheless, we note that at this point the TRO remains under-review at the consultation phase, reflecting local opposition.

20-minute city

We have conducted other research which has modelled the potentiality of the 20-minute city[4].  In our analysis we mapped all essential services (e.g. shopping, leisure, employment, education) against postcodes.  Here we found that a high-degree of urban areas are likely to be near to 20-minute status.  However, there are major issues of equity with regards to the quality and quantity of provision.

We also conducted a similar exercise for an ageing population[5], and again found issues of equity, spatial distribution and fairness.  This, we argue, presents a challenge for the ambition of ‘ageing in place’.

Overall, our analysis of the 20-minute city suggests that service provision is often present.  However, what is lacking is the clear infrastructure (segregated lanes, quite routes, LTNs etc) that links residents to those places.

Final Observations

Our work since 2020 suggests that urban areas such as the Liverpool City Region are clearly capable of supporting a large-scale segregated cycle-network.  In turn, this can rapidly realise 20-minute neighbourhoods for a significant majority of residents.

However, we have also observed a hesitancy to deliver an ambitious agenda – even when government funding and tools are made available.  This, we suggest, reflects a reluctance in the face of local opposition, but also a lack of local political support for the implementation of these schemes (e.g. Emergency Active Travel) under the processes which were available.

In this way, we can only conclude that the Government’s ambitions are unrealistic.

July 2023