Good day my good friend.
This week has been whack-a-mole when it comes to tasks and actually getting work done. In terms of not really stopping to take stock, and instead focussing on getting the job done. The kind of weeks I tend to enjoy, as it means I can put my headphones in, put some banging tunes on (Linkin Park, System of a Down, and Counting Crows have been the flavour this week), and get down to work. Thankfully, each week I get the chance to write this, which does give me the room to process things.
👹 The Monster We Loved
In probably the most famous line in the most famous transport technical report ever written, Traffic in Towns, Colin Buchanan wrote:
It is impossible to spend any time on the study of the future of traffic in towns without at once being appalled by the magnitude of the emergency that is coming upon us. We are nourishing at immense cost a monster of great potential destructiveness, and yet we love him dearly. To refuse to accept the challenge it presents would be an act of defeatism.
This quote ran through my mind as I saw the reaction amongst my esteemed transport planning colleagues to yesterday’s opinion peice in the Financial Times from Tim Leunig, Chief Economist of UK innovation agency Nesta entitled “Lets fall in love with cars again.” I think it is fair to say that the reaction is one of horror, as the central argument that investing in roads is good the economy, and that the UK should be following the US in this regard - by investing in its motorway network.
What you won’t get from me is a critical blow-by-blow account of the article. I have a few issues with the central line of argument (notably with economic impacts reliant on numerous individual changes in travel time treated collectively), and comparisons I would consider unbecoming of someone with a senior position within a major organisation like Nesta. I mean, of course Germany has a bigger motorway network - its a bigger country. And the less said about how we should be the USA the better.
What I will say is that this article points to an uncomfortable truth that far too many transport planning professionals don’t like to face. Or should I say two.
The first is that, unless there is a huge change in government policy, the most likely scenario is that the car will continue to be a major part of our transport system and how people travel around in the future.
The Department for Transport’s Common Analytical Scenarios, against which the business case for schemes is assessed, all contain varying degrees of growth in car traffic. Even critiques of this work, such as the excellent work done by Phil Goodwin, have demonstrated that even when official forecasts have been wrong, car travel has still grown, and still continues to grow. Even the Climate Change Committee, in its assessment of how transport needs to meet the Net Zero by 2050 goal, indicates that a huge part of achieving this goal is the electrification of the vehicle fleet.
There is a line of argument - that I agree with - that thinking in such scenarios does not imagine other potential futures where car use could reduce, either slightly or significantly. With many authorities, Leeds being one, Oxfordshire another, taking the position that reducing car use is a necessary policy outcome, considering a future where are fewer cars is necessary. But fewer does not mean eliminated. At least not in the near future.
There is a simple behavioural reason for this. I like to think of this in a simple phrase.
In the immediate future, how you travel will change little. But further ahead, how you travel changes more than you can imagine.
Transport economists know that, in the short run, transport demand is relatively inelastic. Namely that even if you put the price up, most people will not shift how they travel right away as their journey purpose and locations of travel don’t shift easily. Think of it this way - if you changed jobs every time the train fare went up, how many jobs will you have had. But over the long run, transport demand is relatively elastic. Namely, as we go through life, how and where we travel to changes dramatically, often in accordance with life events.
This is why modal shift is challenging. And how car free futures, while visionary, will take some time to get to. Its not just changing your mode we are asking people to do. Its changing their whole lives.
The second uncomfortable truth contained within this article is that road investment does have an economic benefit, directly and indirectly. Or at least probably they do. There are degrees of uncertainty around the economic benefits of investment in roads. In fact, its a big part of the reason why taking pot-shots at the economic case for road investment is so easy. With the economic benefits often being indirect and over long time frames, how can you be certain of the economic benefits of schemes? How can you put a figure on this?
The Transport Appraisal Guidance, notably the TAG Data Book, contains comprehensive datasets and indicators for the economic case for all transport projects. Despite what many long years of debate over quantifying such benefits may indicate, its not all about journey time savings. It also includes the economic benefits of stopping people dying in collisions (shockingly, a dead person is not as economically productive as a living one), extra years living as a result of cycling as part of a healthy lifestyle, and the social value impacts of bus trips among many things. All based on years of painstaking research, much of which is freely available.
What has been revealed through numerous studies over the years is that investment in roads does yield economic benefits, especially at the regional and national levels. Even if the degree of the impact somewhat varies to what is forecast. It stands to reason that investment in road infrastructure as suggested in the article would do the same.
This does not mean that all road investment is the right investment, nor that it should be the default. There are many reasons to develop schemes, from economic growth to tackling the climate emergency. What I am simply stating here is that there are instances where, yes, investment in roads might be the right answer. Even the Roads Review in Wales, probably the most anti-road approach to transport investment I have seen by any UK public body, realised that while balancing the need to tackle the climate emergency. Taking a position that no road investment is ever justified is as illogical to me as the position that road expansion should be the only game in town.
In one respect, I agree with Tim. If we are serious about economic growth in this country, and the government says it is, then expansion of the motorway network needs to be studied seriously as part of a wider review of options to improve strategic transport, alongside other policy options. Notably actually having a high speed rail network worthy of the name, and potentially some curbs on internal flights.
But economic growth is not the only objective. Improving the social fabric of our nation and tackling the climate emergency are also important. Our investment priorities need to reflect the balance of the objectives agreed upon by government - and no doubt you will disagree with those.
A further final thought is around the nature of the discussion on such matters. Having lived on the internet since the chatrooms of the 1990s, I know the nature of debate on the internet. But it is easy to assume that some debates around areas of transport are settled, and no more need saying. That is not a sustainable position, and these debates need the occasional reopening to understand whether the evidence has changed substantially. For this reason, however uncomfortable it may feel to us, Tim’s contribution is a welcome one even if you disagree with it. It certainly made me think about whether the economic case for road expansion is as weak as I assumed it to be.
👩🎓From Academia
The clever clogs at our universities have published the following excellent research. Where you are unable to access the research, email the author – they may give you a copy of the research paper for free.
TL:DR - Reviews existing work on C‑ITS (connected vehicles & infrastructure) and summarises impact‑assessment methods, service categories and key research gaps.
TL:DR - Investigates how shared‑mobility services are adopted (or not) in rural Austrian towns, identifying behavioural and structural barriers to sustainable mobility.
TL:DR - Uses long‑term GPS data to identify trip chains and dynamically assess accessibility to destinations via public transport in Tallinn, Estonia, showing spatial equity differences.
TL:DR - Proposes a modified ant‑colony optimisation algorithm for designing public‑transport routes, considering real‑world parameters (driving time, delays, attractiveness), and reports ~11.5% reduction in “effort” for the same line. I also thought about Alien Ant Farm’s version of Smooth Criminal a lot while reading it.
TL:DR - Systematically reviews how AI and big‑data techniques support Mobility‑as‑a‑Service (MaaS) and smart sustainable mobility systems, mapping the current state and research directions.
😀Positive News
Here are some articles showing that, despite the state of the world, good stuff is still happening in sustainable transport. So get your fix of positivity here.
Works have started on a fully protected two‑way cycle lane along Wood Lane between the A40 Westway and South Africa Road, which will link up with the existing Cycleway 34 route and improve safety for walkers and cyclists.
Updated consultation plans for the A4 corridor include upgraded walking and wheeling routes, segregated cycle lanes, raised‑kerb bus stops with real‑time info and new bus lanes, improving mode choice and sustainable travel infrastructure.
The new bus‑only lane and accompanying walking and cycling route on Northern Approach Road have been finished, enabling buses to use the dedicated lane and providing safer active travel links across the city.
Eurostar has announced an investment of around €2 billion (30 trainsets initially) in a new fleet of double‑decker high‑speed trains (called Celestia), designed for cross‑channel travel including the UK — boosting capacity and speed.
A scheme in Gloucestershire centres on youths who previously lacked access to regular public transport or green space; it combines nature education with travel‑support (bus/train passes + guided trips), improving both mobility and connection to nature.
📺On the (You)Tube
The Dutch are good at one other thing apart from bikes: fighting the North Sea. In this video, Map Men take a look at one of the most transformative infrastructure projects in European history - the Afsluitdijk. In their usual slightly slapstick style. It literally changed a whole country.
📚Random Things
These links are meant to make you think about the things that affect our world in transport, and not just think about transport itself. I hope that you enjoy them.
Brain Rot: LLMs, Long Covid Edition (Naked Capitalism)
We may finally know why birds sing at dawn (New Scientist)
Land Value Tax in England? No thanks. (Tom Forth)
🎶 Musical Out-Tro
I told you I had listened to a lot of Counting Crows this week. If you want a full, in the face hit of pure 1990s, you can’t get much better than Mr Jones.