Street works standards must meet the needs of every user. Our project is shaping guidance based on real experiences, ensuring accessibility and efficiency for all. Join us and help make a difference!
By Luc Pellecuer, Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering
Unexpected street works forcing you to navigate unmarked diversions without safe crossings can be frustrating. Now imagine facing this scenario while using a wheelchair, pushing a pushchair, or guiding a visually impaired person. What might be merely inconvenient for some becomes a genuine hazard and an accessibility barrier for many.
The Daily Challenge of Street Works
Street works are a necessary part of keeping our cities and towns functional and safe. However, these works often pose significant challenges for vulnerable street users—pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with disabilities, older people, children, and others who rely on safe and accessible pathways. While traffic management practices are guided by UK industry standards and regulations, there is a growing acknowledgement for the need to ensure that these practices are inclusive and prioritise the needs of all street users.
Beyond Inconvenience: The Real Price of Poor Access
Street works can be a source of inconvenience and, more critically, a safety hazard for vulnerable street users. Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) solutions often prioritise vehicular traffic, sometimes leaving pedestrians and cyclists to navigate:
Poorly marked diversions
Uneven surfaces and temporary footways
Inadequate lighting during autumn and winter months
Narrow passages that don’t meet minimum width requirements
Routes that force pedestrians into traffic or require crossing busy carriageways
For individuals with disabilities, such as those who are visually impaired or use wheelchairs, these challenges can be even more daunting. Older people and children also face unique challenges when navigating street works, which increases the risk of trips and falls or makes them less visible to other street users.
The consequences of neglecting vulnerable street users are far-reaching. When walking or cycling becomes inconvenient or unsafe, people may opt for private cars instead – or abandon their daily activities altogether. This shift not only undermines government efforts to promote active travel but also has detrimental effects on public health, community wellbeing, and environmental sustainability.
Current Standards and Guidance: A Glimpse of Hope
Despite the abundance of literature and industry guidance on traffic management, there is limited focus on creating inclusive solutions that cater to all street users. The “Red Book,” officially known as Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice, serves as a key reference for traffic management practices in the UK. However, the latest edition, dating back to 2013, does not offer guidance on how to include vulnerable users’ needs in the design of TTM. Hopefully, its much-anticipated revision will help address this important gap.
Similarly, the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee (HAUC UK) provides essential resources and operational guidance for street works. I attended the HAUC UK convention in Manchester on 2nd April, where the importance of accommodating the needs of vulnerable street users was emphasized. On this occasion, HAUC UK launched a new app that offers valuable practical guidance on accommodating vulnerable street users, specifically addressing the needs of various disabled user groups.
Bridging the Gap: Our Research Project for Inclusive Streets
To help address these gaps, I am leading a research project aimed at investigating the priorities of TTM design and how decisions are made and implemented within the UK context. Our focus is on understanding how current practices incorporate the needs of vulnerable street users and how they can be improved to meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and Public Sector Equality Duty.
The project has the following key objectives:
Safety First: Determine how TTM practices can ensure that vulnerable street users can safely use the highway during construction periods
Service Quality: Evaluate whether these users are provided with acceptable levels of service to use the highway as they choose
Practical Solutions: Develop actionable guidance for practitioners on adapting traffic engineering practices to create safe and sustainable transport infrastructure
By achieving these objectives, the research will enhance active travel, improve community health and well-being, and align with UK transport policy on sustainable infrastructure.
Gathering Insights: Help Shape Better Streets
As part of our project, I will soon be conducting focus groups and short interviews to gather the perspectives of various vulnerable street users. These sessions will provide invaluable insights into the real-world challenges faced by pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with disabilities, older people, and children during street works. This input will help us advise contractors, utility companies, and local highway authorities on the best ways to accommodate your needs.
I invite anyone who identifies as a vulnerable street user or has relevant experiences to participate in our project. If you are interested, please do not hesitate to contact me. Together, we can work towards creating safer and more inclusive streets for everyone. Because when streets work for the most vulnerable among us, they work better for all of us.
This blog was written by Dr Luc Pellecuer, Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University of the West of England, Bristol.
Dr Luc Pellecuer is and member of the Centre for Transport and Society and a Senior lecturer at the School of Engineering where he teaches Transport Engineering. He has always had a keen interest in the sustainable design and management of transport infrastructure. He is particularly passionate about his most recent projects, which focus on developing inclusive transport engineering solutions that serve the most vulnerable member of society. You can contact him at luc.pellecuer@uwe.ac.uk or on LinkedIn: Luc Pellecuer.
The UK’s last-mile decarbonisation strategy is failing local needs, held back by governance gaps, weak policies, and industry inertia. Without urgent reform, freight emissions will continue rising, undermining national net-zero ambitions.
Credit: Photo by Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko (https://www.pexels.com/photo/parcels-inside-a-delivery-van-6170458/)
by Daniela Paddeu, Associate Professor of Sustainable Freight Futures
The UK transport sector faces an urgent need for decarbonisation, with freight transport contributing approximately one-third of its emissions. Urban areas, in particular, experience the highest environmental impact from last-mile deliveries, exacerbated by the exponential growth of e-commerce and the increasing consumer demand for quick deliveries. The UK Transport Decarbonisation Plan sets ambitious national targets, but it lacks a clear, actionable strategy to enable local authorities to address these emissions effectively. This disconnect between national ambitions and local implementation creates a significant governance gap, limiting the ability of local authorities to deliver targeted, place-based solutions.
Why is it so challenging to decarbonise last-mile deliveries?
Despite the increasing urgency to reduce emissions from last-mile deliveries, the sector remains difficult to decarbonise due to a combination of operational inefficiencies, policy misalignment, and resistance to behavioural change.
The research I undertook identifies multiple systemic barriers that represent a challenge to progress:
Limited capacity and expertise within local authorities. Freight transport has historically been overlooked in urban transport planning, which prioritises passenger mobility. As a result, local policymakers lack the technical knowledge and resources to develop comprehensive freight strategies.
Urban vs Rural divide. Solutions such as e-cargo bikes may be effective in cities but are impractical in rural areas where delivery demand is dispersed, and infrastructure is inadequate.
Financial viability of sustainable freight solutions. The transition to clean vehicles and consolidation centres requires significant investment, which is often beyond the financial capacity of local governments and smaller logistics operators.
Stakeholder fragmentation and lack of collaboration. The complexity of last-mile logistics involves multiple actors, including retailers, logistics firms, local governments, and consumers, each with competing interests and priorities.
Consumer expectations and behavioural inertia. The widespread availability of same-day and next-day delivery options encourages inefficient logistics practices, increasing emissions and congestion while making it difficult to consolidate deliveries.
National strategy vs Local reality: a governance failure
The UK government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan fails to provide a comprehensive approach to last-mile deliveries, focusing instead on long-distance freight and passenger transport decarbonisation. This leaves local authorities in a policy vacuum, where they are expected to implement solutions without the necessary legislative support, financial backing, or technical guidance. While the plan acknowledges freight transport as a key contributor to emissions, it remains vague in defining roles and responsibilities across governance levels, leading to ambiguity and inaction at the local level.
When national strategy ignores local realities, governance fails
Furthermore, national policies do not adequately address the interplay between transport planning and consumer behaviour. While passenger mobility policies incorporate behaviour change strategies, there is little to no effort to shift consumer habits related to online shopping and delivery choices. This is a significant shortcoming, as reducing unnecessary deliveries and promoting more sustainable delivery behaviours would have a tangible impact on emissions reduction. My research argues that without intervention at the consumer level, national strategies will remain ineffective in tackling last-mile delivery emissions.
A critical perspective: the need for policy reform
Without decisive policy reform, last-mile decarbonisation will remain an ambition, not a reality
While the research presented in my latest paper offers a comprehensive roadmap for decarbonising last-mile deliveries, its success hinges on a fundamental restructuring of governance mechanisms. Without stronger national support, local authorities remain constrained in their ability to implement meaningful change. The following gaps highlight the need for urgent action:
Lack of local authority autonomy. The UK’s centralised governance structure leaves local councils with insufficient regulatory power to introduce road pricing, consolidation centres, or mandatory clean delivery zones.
Political and economic barriers. The financial weight of decarbonisation falls disproportionately on local governments and small businesses, while larger logistics firms continue to dominate the market with minimal regulatory constraints.
Failure to address market incentives. Consumer behaviour is largely dictated by retailer policies. If online giants such as Amazon and similar online platforms continue to subsidise free and rapid deliveries, local policy measures will struggle to counteract these incentives.
Urban bias in policy proposals. While urban-focused solutions like e-cargo bikes and consolidation centres receive significant attention, it is important to understand how appropriate solutions would address the need of access to goods in rural areas. The feasibility of rural-specific interventions, such as micro-hubs or mobile logistics units, requires further exploration.
A call for coordinated action
In sum, I wanted to share with you my critique of the UK’s current approach to transport decarbonisation, particularly in relation to last-mile deliveries. My latest paper on this topic highlights the urgent need for integrated, multi-level governance, stronger stakeholder collaboration, and more proactive policy interventions to address consumer behaviour and industry practices. An effective design and implementation of appropriate policies and plans to decarbonise last-mile deliveries requires significant political will, regulatory reform, and financial investment.
So, what?
My final takeaway is clear: if the UK really aims to align last-mile deliveries with its net-zero ambitions, it must prioritise:
Empowering local authorities with regulatory tools and financial support.
Mandating sustainable freight practices such as compulsory consolidation and green delivery zones.
Engaging consumers in the transition through pricing mechanisms and awareness campaigns.
Enforcing corporate accountability by compelling major retailers to integrate sustainable logistics into their business models.
Without a radical shift in governance structures and policy priorities, the national net-zero agenda will fail to deliver meaningful change in last-mile logistics. The transition to sustainable local freight must be accelerated, with national and local authorities working together to transform last-mile deliveries to align with environmental, economic, and social sustainability objectives.
This blog was written by Dr Daniela Paddeu, Associate Professor of Sustainable Freight Futures at the Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol.
Dr Daniela Paddeu is a leading researcher in sustainable urban freight and transport decarbonisation. Her work focuses on integrating freight into urban mobility planning, stakeholder engagement, and governance challenges in last-mile logistics. She has conducted extensive research on local authorities’ role in freight policy, highlighting governance gaps and the need for co-designed, place-based solutions. Through her projects, including studies on freight decarbonisation in the UK, she advocates for stronger policy alignment between national ambitions and local implementation strategies. You can contact her at: daniela.paddeu@uwe.ac.uk ¦ Linkedin: Daniela Paddeu.
Pressure to expand aviation continues, even though ‘jet zero’ aviation remains largely theoretical. Hybrid aircraft offer net zero potential, but will consumers trade slower speeds for a clearer conscience?
Credit: Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd
by Graham Parkhurst, Professor of Sustainable Mobility and Director of CTS
January 2025 saw the latest chapter opened in the decades-long Heathrow additional runway saga, and by none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Rachel Reeves argued that ‘greener’ aviation could make crossing this hitherto environmental Rubicon thinkable.
The reality, though, is that a low environmental impact version of the business model currently delivered by airliners equipped with turbofans burning kerosene remains a theoretical possibility subject to an uncertain delivery date. Say it took a decade to deliver the new runway, it would open in 2035. That is the year that Airbus has the “ambition” to deliver its first hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft. The keywords in that sentence are ‘ambition’ and ‘first’. Also in 2035, according to a UK Government mandate , 15% of aviation turbine fuel supplied in the UK must be Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). But that suggests 85% (of a growing volume) won’t be. SAF is also a controversial option. It is not in fact ‘jet zero’. According to the International Air Transport Association, SAF can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 80%. And there are major concerns that production at the scale necessary for this to be a significant solution could only be achieved by using scarce agricultural land.
By 2035, assuming these modest ambitions are realised, and replicated around the globe, we would have 15 years left to avoid or offset the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation and would only just be beginning to replace jet aircraft fleets with hydrogen-powered alternatives. In the absence of a viable strategy to reduce emissions faster, the current aviation business model seems to be broken in terms of climate heating. But aviation has some advantages within the transport system, such as being able to seamlessly cross land and sea and needing terminal infrastructure only in specific places. It is important then to consider whether there are more radical alternative technologies and business models which can offer much lower greenhouse gas emissions in the near future. One such potential lies with Hybrid Air Vehicles’ ‘Airlander‘.
Lighter-than-air craft are not new. For a few years in the 1930s airships such as the Zeppelins seemed to represent the future for passenger aviation. Graf Zeppelin circumnavigated the globe in 1929 and made 64 round trips between Germany and Brazil, establishing the first regular intercontinental commercial air passenger service.
Zeppelin passenger services ended with the infamous demise of the Hindenberg at New Jersey in 1937, but Airlander represents a radically different approach. Being a hybrid aircraft, a helium-filled envelope gives 60% of its lift, like a balloon. Helium is an inert, non-inflammable, so safe, gas. The other 40% comes from aerodynamic lift, like a fixed-wing aircraft. The first series, Airlander 10, will be able to carry over 100 passengers or 10 tonnes of freight, or a combination of the two. Even if kerosene is used for propulsion, the energy consumption and carbon emissions are up to 75% lower than a comparable conventional fixed-wing aircraft. But it is intended that, by 2030, Airlander will produce zero greenhouse gas emissions from flight by using hydrogen fuel cells to power electric motors. Unlike fixed-wing jet aircraft, Airlander is well-suited by design to accommodate onboard hydrogen storage.
Another advantage of Hybrid Air Vehicles’ (HAV) approach is that Airlander flies at a lower altitude, so contrail production can be avoided. Contrails contribute to the radiative forcing that causes climate change. Flying lower also means cabin pressurisation is not necessary, which is better for passenger health.
Airlander requires minimal ground infrastructure, so a broad range of destinations can be served directly, minimising investment needs and the environmental impacts of traditional airport infrastructure.
So, if hybrid aircraft can offer safe, green, accessible and healthy air services, ‘what’s the catch?’ you might be asking. A key difference with most current aviation business models is speed. Airlander’s cruising speed is around 70 knots (130kmh / 80 mph), up to eight times slower than an airliner. Whether this is a ‘catch’ or not depends on the niche we expect a hybrid aircraft to serve, and the emphasis that different users place on minimising travel time.
A transatlantic trip might take up to two days rather than 7-8 hours. If the journey is seen as something to overcome and endure then two days will be seen as a problem. Alternatively, the trip might be seen as an air cruise, valuable in itself, with passengers able to enjoy the view through large windows, made possible by the unpressurised cabin, whilst seated or lying comfortably, as space is at less of a premium than onboard a jet.
Credit: Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd
Many flights, though, are much shorter than crossing the Atlantic. As flight distance falls, the share of time spent airborne relative to the overall journey time also falls. Time due to surface journey legs and passing through terminals becomes relatively important. Airlander will minimise the use of access modes by serving locations directly, made possible by being ‘infrastructure light’. Early applications are expected to connect islands.
Other niches could arise with applications currently served by surface transport modes. In 2023 the then UK Government decided not to proceed with high-speed rail north of London-Birmingham. An affordable alternative might be to serve communities which will not now receive faster rail services with a network of Airlander routes from an interchange near the new Birmingham Curzon Street station.
As with all new technologies and services, though, customers will need to trust hybrid aircraft and perceive them to be useful and useable. In 2023-2024 Chris Parker, Chen Liao, and I collaborated in a research project called Co-Creation of Future Flight Ecosystems and Enterprise (CoFFEE). One element of the project involved a survey of people living in the Doncaster area, where Airlander aircraft are to be built. The analysis covered awareness of Airlander, views on hosting the production facility, and perceptions of Airlander as a future transport option.
Credit: Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd
Most of the 277 respondents had at least heard of Airlander and distinguished it as something different from current passenger jets. The overwhelming mood of respondents was that hosting the Airlander production facility would be good for the local area, even if there were some concerns about the impacts of constructing and operating the factory.
Concerning Airlander as a means of transport, the perceived relevance of Airlander was highest for air services that would not in fact move people (freight, aerial surveying), but passenger travel between UK towns as well as leisure trips such as air cruises were also identified as options by many. Travel for holidays abroad was though selected by fewer than a quarter of respondents.
Which of the following can you imagine Airlander might be used for?
Consistent with these responses, given the operational speed of Airlander, was the willingness of participants to spend more time travelling if it would be better for the environment. Three-fifths of participants indicated that they would be prepared for a one-hour flight to instead take twice as long and approaching a third would accept three hours or longer. Just a tenth was prepared to spend only slightly longer, or no longer at all.
We said above that Airlander is better for the environment than a jet aircraft. Imagine you are thinking about making a journey that takes one hour on a jet plane. How much longer would you be willing to spend travelling to help the environment?
These views are based on a hypothetical trip and considering only the journey time and environmental impact as explicit factors. Respondents would not have experienced travel on an Airlander. The overall positive associations about hosting the production facility may have influenced responses about Airlander as a form of mobility. Nonetheless, the results suggest strong personal concerns about the environmental impacts of aviation and willingness, at least in principle, to make compromises to be able to fly with lower impacts, at least for short-haul flights.
Future research should explore how these trade-offs might be made in practice. In the same way that train travel is promoted as an alternative to flying by jet, Airlander could offer a moderate-speed alternative, for those not well served by rail services. The business model could include a generous onboard space allocation per passenger and sleeper services, so the travel time is used ‘productively’. Avoiding some of the constraints of rail travel, by offering a wide range of direct services and avoiding reliance on track infrastructure would retain some key aviation advantages.
This blog was written by Prof Graham Parkhurst, Professor of Sustainable Mobility and Director of CTS, University of the West of England, Bristol.
Graham was co-investigator in the project Co-Creation of Future Flight Ecosystems and Enterprise (CoFFEE) led by Dr Chris Parker (Loughborough University) between May 2023 and November 2024 and funded by UKRI as part of the Future Flight Social Science initiative coordinated by the University of Birmingham. For any questions or comments about this blog please email graham.parkhurst@uwe.ac.uk.
A festive look at side roads and how priority could be enhanced for people crossing on foot or cycle. An alternative to the King’s Speech or something to read while the sprouts are cooking?
by Jonathan Flower, Senior Research Fellow
Many of us will soon be taking a hopefully well-earned rest over the festive period. At some point, you may put on a paper crown and break into a smile (or not) as someone reads a cracker joke. Well, here are a few, left over from a Christmas party for nerdy Transport Planners, Highway Engineers and others with a niche interest in pedestrian and cycle crossings:
Two hedgehogs are standing on the kerbside, one asks the other: “So, shall we cross? “The other bristles: “No way, look at what happened to the zebra.”
Transport planner: “Have you heard that they’ve updated the Highway Code?”
Friend (stifling a yawn): “Will it work?”
Transport planner: “Well, today I saw a driver stop before turning into a side road to let someone cross… but then I realised they had just run out of fuel!”
It’s like a zoo crossing the road these days. As if toucans, puffins, pelicans and zebras weren’t enough, in the Forest of Waltham I hear that there are elephants too!
We all cross them but spare a thought for the humble side road as you encounter one this Christmas. This blog explores whether changing side road junction designs can enhance priority for pedestrians and cyclists when they cross. It is based on recently published research findings.
In many villages, towns and cities there seems to be an increasing desire to get more people walking, cycling and wheeling. So, when they do, enhancing their priority at junctions where they come into conflict with others, makes sense, but can changes to junction design help?
I have previously considered how we could move away from the ‘traffic in towns’ that has increasingly become the norm since the 1960s to a new normal where our focus becomes ‘people in streets’. The answer may lie in the relationships between regulations, design and behaviour, and how they interact.
Back in January 2022, changes to the Highway Code enhanced priority for people crossing side roads by simplifying the rules on turning. In two recent studies funded by the Road Safety Trust and Transport Scotland (administered by Sustrans) we compared different junction designs and used video to observe how people behaved when using them. We can innovate and change regulations to promote active travel and change designs to do the same, but how will people react? The behaviour of people in these environments is the interesting part and where our innovations succeed or fail.
The studies found that enhanced junctions greatly improve priority for people crossing compared to conventional side roads, without compromising on safety. From the 13,500 observations of drivers turning in and out of side roads at the same time as someone was crossing on foot or cycle, motorists failed to give way to people crossing most of the time at conventional junctions. However, where junctions were enhanced through design or road markings the story was very different and here crossing pedestrians and cyclists were only forced to stop occasionally. Design Priority junctions and Marked Priority junctions with zebras work best. Using road markings other than a zebra is less effective at creating priority for people crossing and appears to be more hazardous for them, despite being the approach most commonly used.
Junction in London with design priority / Photo credit: still from study video, UWE Bristol
The position of the crossing is important. Those nearer the main road like the one shown above offer greater priority for people crossing and are no riskier than ones set further back from the main road. Taking all of this into consideration you might ask yourself whether it would be a good idea to paint zebra markings across side road junctions to make walking easier and safer in local streets. We asked ourselves the same question. Unfortunately, although such zebras (without zig zags, flashing orange lights and 24-hour overhead lighting) are allowed and well understood on private land like hospitals, universities and supermarkets, they are not currently permitted on public roads in the UK. Temporary trials were permitted in Manchester and Cardiff and the results were encouraging. However, in Melbourne simple zebra crossings like these have been permanently installed at prioritised locations to encourage and enable walking and improve safety (permitted under Victoria State law).
A ‘simple’ zebra in Victoria, Australia / Photo credit: Geoff Browne
There is a catch to this solution, even where it is permitted, as there is a risk that enhancing crossing points at some side roads but not others, can lead people to believe that at sites where they are not installed, drivers do not have to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the street into which the driver is turning. To investigate this, I collaborated with the University of Melbourne and our research found that the risk of this unintended consequence is very real and is something that demands more research.
If at some point during your break you want to discover more, pour yourself a port (other festive drinks and non-alcoholic versions are available) and follow one of the links below, which will take you to the papers that explain the studies and their findings in more detail. Alternatively, when you need to walk off one of those celebratory Christmas meals, watch careful at the side roads and see how people are behaving in the streets around you. Happy Christmas and may we have improved priority for people crossing side roads in the New Year!
The blog was written by Dr Jonathan Flower, Senior research Fellow at the Centre for Transport and Society (UWE Bristol).
Dr Jonathan Flower MTPS is a Transport Planner and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Transport and Society. He has a nerdy interest in street design, especially side road crossing points, but he has good intentions, driven by a desire to make streets safer and more attractive places to move around on foot, cycle, or other forms of human-scale, less then cycle-speed mobility. His interest in road safety and his former work in international development has led to two current research projects in Nepal. You can contact him at: jonathan.flower@uwe.ac.uk.
The third edition of the Pedestrian Pound was launched at the House of Commons. It has been expanded with evidence not only on the economic benefits of more walkable streets but the health, community and environmental benefits.
by Kiron Chatterjee, Professor of Travel Behaviour
I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the third edition of the Pedestrian Pound at the House of Commons on 25th November in a packed Committee Room 15. The Pedestrian Pound demonstrates that pedestrian friendly environments are key to turning around our struggling high streets and town centres. As one of the authors, I was intrigued to see how it would be received.
The Pedestrian Pound is an initiative of Living Streets, the UK charity for everyday walking. I was part of the UWE team commissioned by Living Streets in 2011 to write Making the Case for Investment in the Walking Environment, which reviewed evidence of the economic, environmental, health and social benefits of investment in walking friendly public spaces. Two years later in 2013, this led to Living Streets bringing out the first edition of the Pedestrian Pound which focussed on economic impacts and made the ‘The business case for better streets and places’. A second edition was published in 2018 which updated the evidence.
So why a third edition and why now?
High streets and town centres are struggling with the long-term increase in online shopping and the consequences of the pandemic and cost of living crisis. However, they play an important role in the economic and social vitality of local communities. We also face existential threats from climate change and poor population health. It is increasingly apparent that walkable environments, accessible to all, can counter economic decline and contribute to better health, more connected communities and reduced environmental harm.
In this context, Living Streets saw the need for a new version of the Pedestrian Pound with updated and compelling evidence for the wide-ranging benefits of high quality walking environments. Living Streets wanted this to help make the case for better streets to national politicians, local authorities, business improvement districts, campaigners and professionals.
At the heart of the third edition remains the evidence on investing in the walking environment and this has been updated for 2024. The scope of the evidence has been widened to go beyond economic impacts to also consider health, community and environmental impacts. The range of walking interventions considered has been extended to include ‘software’ changes to the walking environment, which alter the user experience (e.g., events, new services, marketing, policy changes), in addition to ‘hardware’ changes to the physical environment.
As well as the main Pedestrian Pound report, there are a number of supplementary documents for practitioners. There are separate country annexes for those wanting to understand the context and key policies and mechanisms for delivery of public realm and walking improvements in England, Scotland and Wales. There is an evaluation briefing aimed at those wanting to know how they can evaluate the benefits of a scheme (either proposed or already implemented).
The Pedestrian Pound and its supplementary documents
Producing this work involved a considerable effort from the research team led by Lisa Hopkinson of Transport for Quality of Life with Beth Hiblin, Martin Wedderburn, Sally Cairns, Martin Frearson and myself. The task involved searching for relevant literature and systematically assessing the evidence, as well as identifying suitable case studies demonstrating what is possible from high quality investment in the walking environment. Workshops were organised and held in England, Scotland and Wales to understand the different contextual circumstances across the three countries. I had a particular responsibility with Martin Wedderburn to produce the evaluation briefing. This required being aware of current practices for assessing walking interventions across different professional domains and recommending how to enhance these based on cutting edge research.
What are the key messages from the Pedestrian Pound?
We found a substantial body of evidence that public realm improvements improve economic, health, community interaction and environmental outcomes. We concluded there is a need to shift away from viewing high streets simply as places for shopping, and instead to see them as public spaces for socialising and connecting people. To achieve this requires more joined up decision making and funding across policy departments, particularly between transport and health.
There are 12 detailed case studies (evenly distributed between England, Scotland and Wales) which accompany the Pedestrian Pound report and illustrate how public realm investment can make a difference to local economies. One example I have witnessed myself is the weekend road closures in the centre of Shrewsbury which have been found to result in a higher growth in sales in the area covered by the weekend pedestrianisation trial than in the rest of the town centre. I have seen for myself that the High Street in the centre of Shrewsbury is teeming with life and how the town in general does not have the empty premises seen in many other towns of its size.
Shrewsbury High Street / Photo credit: Shrewsbury Business Improvement District
How did the launch go?
Well, first, I should note that Scotland beat England in launching the report on 14 November at Edinburgh City Chambers, 11 days before the launch in the House of Commons.
The launch at the House of Commons was hosted by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Cycling & Walking and chaired by Fabian Hamilton MP who was fulsome in his praise for the Pedestrian Pound. He said on X after the event that he was “Delighted to host this important report launch today. We must do more to make our streets safer, cleaner and more accessible.”
An overview of the Pedestrian Pound was given by Living Streets’ Chief Executive Catherine Woodhead after which Minister for Local Transport, Simon Lightwood MP, expressed his gratitude for the work and highlighted how a walkable environment supports the outdoor market in his constituency town of Wakefield. Adjunct Professor of Economics at London Business School, Dr Linda Yueh CBE, was invited to give her reflections on the work and said what was particularly important was the third edition evidenced the multi-dimensional benefits of high quality public realm.
Speakers at the Pedestrian Pound launch in the House of Commons / Photo credit: Living Streets
After the main speakers, a few observations and questions were offered by MPs present from the APPG for Cycling & Walking. One concern raised was that visitors to town centres from outlying areas had little alternative but to drive and needed convenient parking. In response it was suggested that a small compromise to the convenience of parking could make a big difference to destination quality for everyone.
What I look forward to seeing in the coming years is how the Pedestrian Pound helps those with responsibility for our high streets and town centres to implement schemes which raise the quality of public realm to the benefit of walkers, wheelers and local communities in general.
Kiron Chatterjee is Professor of Travel Behaviour in CTS at UWE Bristol. His research looks at how travel behaviour changes over time and how people’s access to transport affects their life opportunities and wellbeing. Kiron is currently responsible for a number of evaluation projects for Department for Transport, as well as UKRI projects on walking school buses and Demand Responsive Transport.
On the 18th of July we have hosted our 2024 CTS Symposium, to celebrate our Research Centre’s research interests and achievements.
We were very pleased to welcome 74 delegates and see that they found the day enjoyable and interesting – 85% gave an overall rating of 80/100 or above, and levels of satisfaction were high across the content, networking opportunities, and organisation.
We would like to share with you a summary of the key take-aways from the event, as well as links to the recording of the different sessions, in case you missed the event.
CTS Director Professor Graham Parkhurst opened the proceedings by briefly introducing the revised CTS research themes as:
He then invited Professor Enda Hayes, Director of Research and Enterprise for the School of Architecture and Environment in which CTS is based, to welcome delegates on behalf of the University.
Ed presented “Transport in Bristol – Regaining momentum”. Some key lessons learned from Ed’s presentation are:
Balancing evidence-based policy with innovative approaches – there is a need to integrate solid evidence into transport policy while also considering innovative, less traditional approaches to create a more sustainable transport system. Ed highlighted the challenge of moving away from the conventional “predict and provide” model towards a more flexible and forward-thinking “decide and provide” approach. Ed emphasised that we have a lot of evidence-based policies and possible projects, but it is difficult to determine which ones will be the most effective and affordable mix to take forward to decarbonise transport in Bristol at pace, whilst keeping the City moving and bringing the majority with us.
Addressing transport and accessibility issues – Ed acknowledged that there are significant transport issues in Bristol, including high car ownership, congestion, poor air quality, and issues with bus services. He stressed the importance of improving transport accessibility, particularly for disabled people, to enhance the overall transport system for everyone.
Collaborative governance and urban planning – with the transition to a committee-based system in the City Council, Ed advocated for better collaboration across parties to address transport challenges. He outlined several priorities, such as managing demand, enhancing public transport, and focusing on urban planning to reduce reliance on cars and promote more sustainable transport modes.
We then had two break-out sessions, to share some insights from our latest research projects and interests.
Travel behaviour and the mobility experience
This was one of the two parallel break-out sessions and examined active travel as daily practice and potential.
Dr Ben Clark presented a review of evidence on the extent to which new cycling infrastructure increases levels of cycling and encourages modal shift from car travel.
If you want to see Ben’s presentation, click here.
Dr Asa Thomas introduced ongoing research as part of the Optimised Walking School Bus Planning project, and highlighted several trends related to school travel in the UK with a focus on the long-term decline in walking, particularly for distances over a mile.
If you want to see Asa’s presentation, click here.
Tom Eadie examined the implications of designing 15-minute cities for all population groups, including, for example, older people, and assessed the accessibility needs of different social groups.
If you want to see Tom’s presentation, click here.
This was a parallel break-out session, and considered a diverse set of topics related to governance, including drone deliveries, electric cars, and more inclusive Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans.
Dr Eda Beyazitshared insights on her research and experience of gender equality and social inclusion in sustainable urban mobility planning, drawing upon her experience in Istanbul. If you want to see Eda’s presentation, click here.
Dr Daniela Paddeu discussed specific uncertainties related to governance for drone last-mile deliveries, mainly related to regulations and liability issues, but also public acceptance, social benefit, and integration of drones to the wider transport system, especially in a mixed-traffic environment. If you want to see Daniela’s presentation, click here.
Professor Graham Parkhurst explored scenarios in which transitioning from ICE to EV is most likely to achieve emissions reduction targets while maintaining a viable future for the auto industry. If you want to see Graham’s presentation, click here.
During the second part of the morning, we had two plenary sessions.
We heard from our new appointed Professor Justin Spinney, who presented “Driven to care: types of caring, journey qualities, personal mediating factors”. In his presentation, Justin reflected on the increasing demand for cars from a sociological perspective, drawing on a small RTPI funded project in collaboration with Andrew Ivins at Cardiff University. He highlighted the significant impact of ‘social acceleration’ leading to tight schedules and the lack of routinisation in modern life, driven by technological advancements such as smartphones and automobility.
Justin pointed out that these societal changes have reshaped the qualities people value in transport systems, emphasising time-saving, flexibility, and load-carrying capacity. Justin argued that our current transport systems often fail to accommodate the intensified and diversified schedules of modern life, leading to increased car dependency. He also emphasises the importance of rethinking what motivates our transport choices in non-wage mobility contexts to prioritise care over traditional metrics like time and productivity . The need to recognise the changing motivations and qualities that citizens require is essential if we are to develop public and active modes of transport that fit for the 21st Century. Here you can find Justin’s presentation and video recording.
The plenary followed with a presentation from Professor Glenn Lyons, our Mott MacDonald Professor of Future Mobility at UWE Bristol. Glenn presented: “Triple Access Planning – A fairytale new beginning?”. Within his presentation, Glenn caricatured the rather gloomy sense of the paradigm of ‘predict and provide’ in which traditional transport planning has sat before pointing to the colourful new ‘kingdom’ on offer. He told us about his experience with the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (which happened ten years ago), where a shift to the “decide-and-provide” approach was identified as necessary.
This led to the development of Triple Access Planning (TAP), which integrates transport, land use, and digital connectivity while also accommodating uncertainty. TAP promotes a more holistic, resilient, user-centric, and collaborative approach to planning. Glenn also shared the publication of the “Triple Access Planning for Uncertain Futures Handbook” which serves as a guide for practitioners to implement this new approach. TAP challenges conventional methods, advocating for visionary, inclusive, and sustainable transport solutions that better address the evolving needs of society, marking a significant paradigm shift in transport planning. Here you can find Glenn’s presentation and video recording.
‘Yes Minister’ Panel discussion
The plenary session followed with a panel discussion in which the panellists were asked to imagine themselves as special advisers for the new Government and had to brief the new Secretary of State for Transport.
In the King’s speech at the state opening of parliament on Wednesday 17th July the incoming Labour government laid out its five strategic transport priorities, supported by the Secretary of State for Transport’s new motto for her department, “our purpose is simple: move fast and fix things”:
Improving performance on the railways and driving forward rail reform
Improving bus services and growing usage across the country
Transforming infrastructure to work for the whole country, promoting social mobility and tackling regional inequality
Delivering greener transport , and
Better integrating transport networks.
Emeritus Professor Phil Goodwin (who helped write ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’ for the last incoming Labour government in 1997) thought that “fixing things” required some time to reflect. He proposed that all planned major road schemes for England that the government has inherited should be independently reviewed against the five strategic priorities and only taken forward if the schemes help to deliver them. It is a time to reboot.
Steve Gooding(Director of the RAC Foundation, and former Director General of the Roads, Traffic and Local Transport Group at the Department for Transport) warned that proposing time for review would require careful framing as it might be seen at odds with “moving fast”. He also pointed out the reality of competing priorities faced by government and the expectations of the public and business. Scrapping major road schemes might save money that could be directed elsewhere, but also risked undermining the Government’s desire to get on with infrastructure and get the economy moving. Steve went further and pointed out that achievement of some government objectives would require more funding for roads: improved bus services require investment in roads as do Angela Rayner’s (the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government) plans for new homes and even new towns.
Phil responded that the government could move fast with the things in its manifesto but should review any projects that might undermine its strategic priorities.The other panellists underscored the need to bring people with them and suggested that this required being frank with the public about the challenges.
Professor Helen Bowkett (Senior Technical Director at Arcadis, experienced in transport modelling and appraisal of transport schemes) railed against three popular transport obsessions that need to be exposed. The obsession with speed, despite our knowledge that lower speeds can reduce carbon emissions and lower road speeds such as the 20-mph default urban speed in Wales can reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured. The obsession with rail, despite the huge subsidy from central government received for every trip only benefiting a limited, generally wealthier demographic. In contrast bus subsidies are the responsibility of local government but are more likely to reach people who are socially and economically deprived. Finally, the obsession with benefit cost ratios and the weight given to them, when they should be one of multiple inputs considered to inform planning and investment decisions. Helen argued that we need to move away from disjointed scheme appraisals to a system that enables us to establish what we want to do in each area. We need an approach that enables us to think before we plan. Helen highlighted that adverse environment impacts are often governed by legislation and the project has to be changed to avoid or mitigate them but there is often not a similar force behind the consideration of social impacts in transport appraisal This needs to change.
Finally, Dr Jo Barnes (Professor of Clean Air, UWE) urged caution when moving fast to implement change intended to fix things, citing the example of a National Highways proposal to replace bitumen for road surfacing with recycled plastic. While this might appear to contribute to “delivering greener transport” it would throw up a whole new problem of air pollution and the health hazard of microplastics in the atmosphere. Jo would urge that we engage more with industry, the public and other departments to improve air quality and there should be an open public debate about the transition from cars with internal combustion engines, to electric vehicles. She thinks that government should stand up to motor manufacturers that lobby for lower emissions standards and challenge the rising number of SUVs in urban areas. There needs to be more collaboration between departments (Transport, DEFRA, NetZero, OHID and Energy) to tackle air pollution.
In sum, our panel experts were broadly supportive of the five strategic priorities. However, whilst recognising the political imperative to make swift progress they would urge caution that the Secretary of State’s stated ambition to move fast should be tempered by taking steps to ensure the evidence-base is clear, in order to be confident of fixing those things that would deliver equality and social mobility, and to take people along with them through transparent communication.
Here you can find more info about the panellists’ speeches.
NET walk
During the lunch break a sizeable group of the symposium’s participants split off to explore UWE’s campus – digesting the morning’s presentations and perhaps also the generous hunks of carrot cake that accompanied the buffet. The purpose of this ‘Net Walk’, an idea of Dr Juliet Jain, was to provide an opportunity for networking outside of the spaces that are typical of conferences and symposia. Stepping out of the Engineering Building, the route visited the Bristol Robotics Lab and the new bee-friendly garden space by the farmhouse building, while avoiding the numerous holes in the ground caused by UWE’s ongoing heat decarbonisation project. During the walk, participants got a chance to meet other attendees in an informal setting, expanding their networks beyond the familiar faces one might gravitate towards on the conference floor. At designated stops there was a chance to switch walking partners and make another connection.
We had a good response to the Net Walk from participants, with several mentioning it as a highlight of the day. We will take this forward in future editions of the CTS Symposium and encourage participants to join us on the next one – although we cannot guarantee the lovely weather experienced this year.
Workshops
Workshop on Local Bus Automation
Around 20 delegates took part in a workshop responding to the question ‘Can the Automation of Local Buses Add Value to Delivering Sustainable Transport?’. Prof Graham Parkhurst began the workshop by introducing the MultiCAV project (a summary of the project featured in an earlier CTS blog). Participants then took part in a ‘carousel’ of four 15-minute guided discussions on the themes of:
the user perspective, and the challenges that unstaffed automated buses might bring, coordinated by Dr Billy Clayton
stakeholder perspectives on how automation might realistically be applied, with Dr Ben Clark
the sustainability implications of automated buses drawing on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal indicators, proposed by Prof Graham Parkhurst
The coordinators then gave summary feedback. The following are highlights:
Billy’s groups felt that passengers would quickly get used to the experience of riding without a driver controlling the vehicle but thought it unlikely that operators would be content to send an unstaffed bus out into an unpredictable fully mixed urban road environment.
Ben’s groups highlighted some scepticism amongst participants that we will ever reach full automation.
Jonathan’s groups considered benefits of partial automation like programming smooth driving styles which complied with speed limits, to reduce tyre pollutants and driver fatigue.
Graham’s groups thought automated buses would be well suited to offering more flexible routes if operating costs were lower, and this would influence performance against some indicators.
In Billy’s break-out group focusing on the passenger experience of autonomous buses, participants felt that passengers would quickly get used to the experience of riding without a driver controlling the vehicle, but questioned the safety and cost benefits of autonomy in the bus context. Discussion centred on passengers’ preference for an “official” presence on board the vehicle, be this in the form of a driver or a conductor, and on the operator side, it was thought unlikely that operators would be content to send an autonomous bus out into a fully mixed urban road environment without any official human presence on board, due to the high possibility of unforeseen circumstances in which it would be necessary to have someone present on the bus to manage the situation.
Workshop on Are we serious about net-zero? Understanding current and future systems to achieve NetZero freight
About 18 people participated in the net-zero freight systems workshop and tried to address the question: “What factors influence the demand for goods in local areas while considering
net-zero targets?”. Despite the great financial benefits companies might have from increased online shopping, inefficient management of local freight flows would be expected to generate increased road congestion, poor air quality, increased road traffic collisions, increased costs for freight companies, and a general negative impact on accessibility, with direct impacts on accessibility for people as well as for goods.
Credit: Mabel Still
After a brief presentation to set the scene and explain why understanding and embedding freight into our thinking is important and drawing upon the recently published Triple Access Planning for uncertain futures handbook, Dr Daniela Paddeu invited participants to work in groups and co-design their mental models (Causal Loop Diagrams) of local freight systems. Participants were encouraged to use the Triple Access System approach, which encourages planners to consider the main factors that influence end-consumers’ choices when they buy products online, especially with respect to the way they have their products delivered, and how areas can respond to these needs while designing and planning for an efficient system.
It was interesting to see how participants considered different aspects of local freight, including economic growth of local areas, as well as air quality, public health implications of freight movements; but also social inequalities, considering winners and losers of online shopping and last-mile deliveries, looking into how neighbourhoods and local areas should be designed to improve access for goods, but also limiting or mitigating the negative externalities due to goods movements in those areas.
Workshop on What is the relation between walkability and governance?
If you were in charge of delivering walkable cities, what would you do, and what resources or tools would you need? The workshop examined walkability from a policy and governance perspective.
Credit: Jim Walker
To kick things off, Dr Tamara Bozovic provided insights gathered from case study analyses of successful walking improvements, examining contributors to implementation, encountered barriers, ways outcomes were monitored and how they aligned with strategic intents.
Some 40 participants, active in administration, advocacy, or academy, first brainstormed to define “the problem” at hand. The discussions reflected the complexity within which walkability operates. Many interlinked dimensions of “the problem” were noted, including lack of leadership, lack of value given to walking experiences, siloed decision-making processes, walking as a mode of transport overlooked, inherent practices, or issues of ownership of space.
The participants brainstormed recommendations for decision-making. The discussions at the group tables and across the room were extremely rich and insightful. Participants took a systems approach, examining leadership and governance, walking experiences, redesign of urban environments to support walking, or ways to normalise walking as a mode of transport.
Closing
Ben Clark (MSc Transport Engineering and Planning Programme Leader) presented a UWE prize of £300 for the best dissertation submitted by Tom Eadie, a student on the programme in the previous academic year (2022-23).
Prof Graham Parkhurst closed the conference by observing that a theme that had been important to him across the day was the need for professionals in the transport sector to lead the decarbonisation mission but, in a time characterised by polarised politics, remembering the importance of consensus-building and UN’s principle of ‘leaving no one behind’. He thanked the organising team and the delegates for their engagement.
Delegates were then asked to complete an online feedback survey. Later analysis showed that 85% gave an overall rating of 80/100 or higher, particularly enjoying the keynote speakers and the panel discussion.
Some quotes from our participants:
I have thoroughly enjoyed the whole day. The inclusion of students, the focus on sustainability (while thoughtfully following it up with a request to bring water bottles and having plant-based food) and the content have all be superb. The NET walk was valuable and such a lovely addition. I’m looking forward to attending again. Thank you!
Loved the panel discussions, the presentations were a good mix of technical and fun!
Smoothly ran, engaging presenters and broad range of topics. Workshops went well too.
Such a great day, really interesting, great to hear about so many ideas and research, also to talk to new people, share ideas.
Enjoyed the workshop discussions and the Netwalk (networking opportunities).
Catering was fantastic and great to see it was fully plant based given the impact of animal agriculture (even more than transport!) Fantastic event. Thank you to organisers and speakers
We are very pleased that our attendees enjoyed the Symposium. We would like to thank everyone who presented and attended. Active participation, insightful presentations, and strong engagement were key in making this event a great success.
We are really looking forward to meeting you all next year at our 2025 CTS Symposium!
Our annual symposium will be on Thursday 18 July 2024 on Frenchay Campus and will feature an exciting and thought-provoking array of talks and keynotes as well as a panel and workshops. The event is free and you can even get special train fares (see below).
We would like the symposium to be an opportunity to share and engage with transport research on the topics of governance and equity; transport planning and placemaking; technological change; travel behaviour and the mobility experience.
Programme
After the welcome and symposium opening, we will hear a keynote by Councillor Ed Plowden, new Chair of Bristol City Council’s Transport and Connectivity Committee, followed by two breakout sessions:
Travel behaviour and the mobility experience, examining active travel as daily practice and potential
Governance and technological change, considering a wide array of tools for better performing transport systems (drone deliveries, public transport automation, and more inclusive Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans).
The second part of the morning will be a plenary session presenting Triple Access Planning followed by a panel in which the panellists (to be announced next week) will imagine themselves as special advisers and brainstorm ways to brief the new Government’s Secretary of State for Transport.
The symposium will break for lunch and you will have the option to participate in a NetWalk (the spaces are limited, make sure you select the option when registering).
In the afternoon, three parallel workshops will offer to:
Learn how to use systems thinking for decarbonising freight while considering uncertainty.
Examine automated bus services from the policy and planning perspectives and provide input to help frame next steps on the research agenda. Or
Think about the decision-making processes that can deliver more walkable environments, and brainstorm policies’ and tools’ desirable evolution.
We hope to see you on 18July at Frenchay! We have partnered with GWR to offer a significant discount to delegates – for that, book your tickets using the link provided by GWR and make sure you have with you a confirmation of attendance, which can be requested by train controllers. This can be your registration confirmation or an invitation we’ll be happy to provide. Please email us if you have any doubt or require assistance.
CTS evaluated one of the world’s first autonomous buses running in service. The technology was capable and accepted by users, but uncertainties remain about how it can be rolled out.
Can new technologies like bus automation support a shift to more sustainable mobility? How in practical terms could automation make buses more attractive? These were the key questions which motivated the Centre for Transport & Society’s (CTS) involvement in the five-year MultiCAV research and development project, co-funded by Innovate UK and the Government’s Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles.
As well as operating autonomous electric bus services, MultiCAV, based at Didcot (Oxfordshire, UK) introduced electric bike sharing and an enhanced travel information system. The project was led by bus operator First Bus, supported by Nova Modus. Milton Park Technology and Science Park and Oxfordshire County Council hosted and facilitated the project’s services. Fusion Processing provided automation technology, and Zipabout, digital travel information integration. CTS, based at the University of the West of England in Bristol, was responsible for evaluative research to learn lessons from the application of the technologies and draw out messages for the future.
The research by CTS engaged users of the MultiCAV services, branded ‘Mi-Link’, as well as people working at Milton Park, who were seen as potential users. They took part in surveys and interviews. The ‘safety operators’, professional bus drivers who oversaw the automated buses and drove them when necessary, gave feedback on their experiences, and partners in the project also reflected on their ‘learning journeys’.
The two demonstration autonomous bus services ran in the Spring and Summer of 2023. As far as possible they were designed to feel like typical bus services, with route numbers, bus stops with printed timetables, and information also available online and in real-time.
A few things made the services a bit unusual: they were operated by electric minibuses, still quite rare in the UK at the time, and passengers needed to be seated, wearing seatbelts. Fares were not charged, but most people travelling on the chosen routes (first within Milton Park, and then later between Milton Park and Didcot railway station) already had prepaid bus passes anyway.
Interior of the Bus
View of bus interior from back seat looking towards front
Most Mi-Link passengers were very regular and frequent bus users. For the most part they found the services to be much like other bus services they travelled on. They found them to be quieter, probably because of the use of electric power. Our report on user experiences examines these and other views in more detail.
An indicator panel was put in the bus so that passengers could see when it was being driven by the autonomous system and when the human safety operator driving. For most typical manoeuvres during the journey users thought the autonomous system was driving as well or better than a human. But, even so, for now at least, passengers still wanted there to be a human presence on the bus, to cope with the unexpected. Our research also resulted in a report considering the views of people working at Milton Park, who also backed up this point: they were positive towards using automated buses provided they would be staffed.
Autonomous Mode Indicator
Sign illuminated with blue LEDs to read * Auto *
The experiences during the project of the safety operators were critical to record, and are covered in a third report. They had positive opinions about the training they received and their experiences ‘co-piloting’ the bus. Their confidence in the technology grew through the months of the demonstration services. One thing we had not expected was that the operators would work in partnership with the automated system, in order to give the best service to the passengers. They recognised when the bus was driving more effectively than a human driver would be able to, but also knew when it was the right moment to take control in order to avoid over-cautious braking, or to negotiate a junction where risk-taking by human drivers is the norm.
The last strand to our evaluation was to ask our MultiCAV project partners to share their experiences; the topic of a fourth report. On reflecting upon their experiences across the project, the partners described a technology which was maturing in capability. At the beginning of the project in 2018 the team had struggled to secure a sufficiently capable autonomous vehicle. Events including COVID-19 then slowed the rate of progress. There were ‘teething troubles’ to overcome such as cutting back roadside vegetation that could affect the autonomous driving system. But, in 2023, partners were nonetheless surprised and reassured to experience the bus running automated at 40 mph in normal traffic.
So where next for autonomous buses? In the near future, the project has identified passenger benefits from autonomous driving technology working in partnership with human drivers. The findings support the case for buses to be equipped with greater driver-assistance technologies, similar to the way that smaller vehicles like cars are evolving.
But a large benefit from lower operating costs is only possible if buses do not need to be staffed. The lower operating costs could mean additional bus services can be provided, or fares reduced. But this would only be possible if the need for intervention by safety operators is removed. The experiences in MultiCAV confirm the ecosystem around automated buses would need to evolve before unstaffed operation is possible. There are different views about how far roads will need to be standardised to allow automated vehicles to operate on them; some think at least some changes will be necessary, others argue that the evolution of autonomous driving systems will make changes unnecessary. Depending on how far the technology develops, roads may need additional maintenance and different ways of managing things like temporary road works. It is clear though that there will have to be a reliable solution for travellers with additional needs, such as wheelchair users, who are currently assisted by the bus driver. The confidence of the public in travelling on unstaffed buses would need to grow. They might receive remote support by telecommunications as they do on some trains.
In the meantime, fully autonomous buses may be able to operate first where it is possible to provide bus-only roads, perhaps in new residential or commercial developments where the land can be set aside. Special-needs passenger assistance would be bookable, as is the case on the railways. If it is not possible to provide a bus-only road for the whole route, then the service may have an automated section and a human-driven section, so that operating cost savings are made at least for part of the route.
This blog was written by Prof Graham Parkhurst, Professor of Sustainable Mobility and Director of CTS, University of the West of England, Bristol. Graham led the CTS research in the MultiCAV project between November 2018 and January 2024. For any questions or comments about this blog or the project please email graham.parkhurst@uwe.ac.uk.
By Glenn Lyons, Mott MacDonald Professor of Future Mobility
Three years ago UWE’s Centre for Transport and Society was at the very beginning of leading a 16-partner pan-European consortium in a three-year project to explore and develop the concept of Triple Access Planning. Now the project has come to a close and our Handbook for Practitioners is published and freely available. The high level summary of the Handbook is as follows.
Planning for the future continues to evolve in the face of a changing world. What we did in the past will not work for the future. Even the recent shift, with greater interest in transport planning being vision-led and focused on people rather than traffic, it is still not enough.
This Handbook is the next evolutionary step. It supports a way of thinking and acting that is intended to mark a change from transport planning in the ‘predict and provide’ paradigm to ‘Triple Access Planning’ in the ‘decide and provide’ paradigm. This is vision-led (‘decide’) instead of forecast-led (‘predict’). It includes digital accessibility alongside spatial proximity and mobility (together making ‘triple access’). It also includes addressing uncertainty about the future.
The Handbook is a companion guide for those who are already conversant with transport planning or other planning approaches. It explains the triple access perspective on planning, the handling of uncertainty, addressing access for goods, and the organisational and institutional challenges associated with Triple Access Planning. For each of these themes, four planning phases are examined: (i) Philosophy – why take this approach?; (ii) Preparation and Analysis – assessing the current and future situations; (iii) Strategy Development – determining visions/goals and the approaches to achieving these; and (iv) Measure Planning – identifying more specifically what needs to be implemented to achieve goals. The first of these is an important (informal) orientation phase. The other phases reflect those recognised in European Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (which also includes ‘Implementation and Monitoring’).
Whilst Triple Access Planning does not offer an easier approach than established planning practices and institutions, it is more fit for purpose in relation to the challenge and opportunities we now face. This Handbook is a staging post in the onward journey of change in how we make sense of, and seek to be prepared for and shape, the future. Please embrace it.
In keeping with the times, if you are thinking “but what IS Triple Access Planning”, you may wish to start by asking Co-pilot to explain how TAP is different from traditional transport planning:
If your curiosity has been aroused and you would like to know more but don’t feel ready to dive into the Handbook itself, there are various resources that have been recently produced to support the Handbook’s launch:
There’s an introductory video for the Handbook (alternatively see related LinkedIn Post with video) that offers a 15-minute insight into TAP and the contents of the Handbook (a PDF of the slides in the video is also available here)
Watch a March 2024 recording on YouTube of a panel discussion with practitioners about Triple Access Planning
We’ve been proud at UWE to play our part in helping bring forwards this diffusion of innovation in transport planning. It has been particularly rewarding to be involved in a project that brings together academics and practitioners and has at its heart a strong sense of purpose, notably a wish to help strengthen planning at a time when shaping the future seems so critical in the face of a climate and nature emergency.
CTS welcomes Justin Spinney as Professor of Transport and Mobility Studies. Contributing expertise in the fields of cycling, mobility justice, political-economy, and virtual mobilities, Justin aims to complement and extend the scope of research and teaching in CTS and the College of Arts, Technology and Environment.
The first time I met the one and only John Parkin (newly emeritus Professor of Transport Engineering in CTS) I had just started a PhD on Urban Cycling at Royal Holloway University of London. I had seen an announcement for a conference called Velo-City in Paris and thought it might be a good place to get up to speed on all things cycling. With precious little preparation I booked a Eurostar and arrived in Paris late at night with nowhere to stay, and, it turns out, no money: I had just enough cash for one night at #world’sworsthostel. I survived, and the next day made it to the conference knowing absolutely no one. As luck would have it, the first person I started a conversation with happened to be John; I didn’t know then just how good he was or what high regard he was held in. Despite the fact that I clearly had a lot to learn, and certainly knew very little about cycle engineering, he took the time to chat to me, direct me towards some good sessions, and generally made sure I was OK. That was 2003.
Little did I know that 20 years later I would ‘replace’ John (upon his well-earned retirement – no sign of it yet) as Professor of Transport and Mobility Studies in the Centre for Transport and Society at UWE. I use the word ‘replace’ in inverted commas for two reasons: firstly because you can’t replace someone like John – his contribution to the world of cycle engineering, planning, and behaviour change is unlikely to be matched anytime soon. Secondly, because I have (very wisely) not been brought in to replace John; but rather to complement the substantial expertise of CTS in ways that speak to my strengths and research interests in transport and mobility.
A key area of interest for me lies in examining the links between mobility and economic growth, particularly as it relates to post/beyond growth agendas.
There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that our current approaches to decarbonisation (of all sectors, but most intractably transport) will not meet Net Zero targets in anywhere close to the time we have: Vogel and Hickel 2023 note that whilst the UK is currently the top performer in decoupling emissions from economic growth, at the current rate of progress it will take 220 years to reach Net Zero. In no small part, our obsessions with (poorly distributed) economic growth and technological optimism are inhibiting deep and rapid emissions cuts. As I outlined in the book Understanding Urban Cycling, we need to understand how we can create mobility systems that enable us to recognise, value and count othered forms of social value and personal utility that move away from cost and time as the central metrics of success.
A further area of interest lies in using post-colonial approaches to examine the ways in which mobility transitions are shaped by policy mobilities; domestic contexts; colonial legacies; and geo-political forces. How for example do existing industrial and labour networks affect sustainable transport policy? How are mobility agendas transmitted, adopted and re-authored and what effects do they have on what are considered viable sustainable mobility choices? I have already begun researching some of these issues in relation to anti-motorcycling policy in Taipei and Taoyuan (Taiwan) and am looking forward to developing them further with (amongst others) Wen-I Lin at NTPU, Paolo Bozzuto at Politecnico Milano, and Jonathan Flower & Graeme Parkhurst at UWE.
I have a long-standing interest in mobility justice, and particularly the ways in which different groups are included/ excluded in transport decision-making and impacted by sustainability policy, design and initiatives.
Young child riding on a slope in a BMX park (Source: Photo by 童 彤 on Unsplash)
I’m also looking forward to making a significant contribution to teaching at CTS and the College of Arts, Technology and Environment more broadly, in particular on the excellent MSc Transport Engineering and Planning as module leader for Sustainable Transport Operations and Management; and on the BA Geography as module co-leader for Transport and Mobility. Research-led teaching is an essential part of strong university tuition and I will bring my 20 years of experience in the field of Geography and Mobility Studies to enhance pedagogy and student experience at UWE.
To be here at CTS surrounded by such a talented (and friendly!) group of people who are passionate about helping to create mobility systems fit for the 21st Century and beyond is a real privilege. Even just a few weeks in, I already know I have landed in the right place, and am looking forward to the positive contribution we can make together. Watch this space.
This blog post was written by Professor Justin Spinney who is Professor of Transport and Mobility Studies at CTS.
Justin Spinney is a human geographer and economic sociologist broadly interested in the intersections between mobility, embodiment, environmental sustainability and technology. He completed his PhD at Royal Holloway University of London in 2007. Straight after PhD he had the good fortune to work with both Professor Tim Jackson (University of Surrey) and Professor Rachel Aldred (at University of East London) as a research fellow. Prior to joining CTS in March 2024, he worked for ten years in the School of Geography and Planning at Cardiff University. He has published widely and been awarded funding from EPSRC, ESRC, Royal Geographical Society and EU ERASMUS+. In 2017 he and his collaborators won the RTPI award for research excellence for the Cycle Boom project.
