Strategic Active Travel Consultation
1. Bike Safe is a charity dedicated to promoting active travel in Oxfordshire. We are a member of COHSAT and work closely with other members of the Oxford Cycling Network (OCN).
People walk and cycle for a range of reasons, not just to get to work
2.The consultation document brings together relevant background information as well as relevant policy statements and commitments. Bike Safe recognises that accurate, detailed and up-to-date information on cycling and walking is not easy to get but we caution against relying too much on information that is focussed primarily on commuting and trips for work purposes. Travel to work is only one element of travel and omits regular or frequent journeys to schools or for shopping and socialising. A report into cycling in Oxford in 2005
https://eastoxfordgroupe.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/oxcamcycling-survey1.pdf
explored the purpose of journeys and draws attention to the multiple reasons for cycling referencing "commuting, shopping, travelling to college, travelling to leisure destinations (e.g., gymnasia, cinemas, pubs), and visiting friends and family." Note, too, that for women, it is the non-work purposes that are more important.
3. The reason for criticising an excessive and unjustified reliance on work-related data for assessing potential demand for active travel is that it
a) under-estimates the scale of the potential and
b) may lead to a mis-allocation of resources, with too much emphasis on commuting and work-related journeys
c) fails to recognise the consequences of the growing importance of working from home.
The growth in active travel?
4..It would have been helpful to have seen data on the number of cycling and walking journeys over time - say and 20 or 25 years. Bike Safe does not have access to long-term data on walking and cycling rates although we have monitored traffic volumes on the B4044 for roughly the last 10 years.
If this is a guide, it tells us that cycling and walking rates are barely changing. There has been a small increase in both, but it does not reflect a step change and is certainly not on the scale of the targets set out in national or county plans/policy statements. It is clear that if those aspirations are to be achieved and the benefits in terms of air quality, public health, reduced congestion etc are to be secured, we need to make major changes in transport infrastructure and significantly extend travel choices so that active travel is something that people choose for themselves and their families.
Quite simply, people will not choose to walk or cycle if it is perceived to be dangerous, indirect or inconvenient.
Learning form others
5. There has been significant and sustained growth in active travel in other cities in the UK as well as internationally. It is most surprising that the draft consultation report makes no reference to the experience of other cities which are facing similar challenges to Oxfordshire.
For now, we confine our comments to the UK, and in particular draw attention to the report published some years ago called Running out of Road – see https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads/Running-out-of-Road-June-2018.pdf
6.It is worth restating (and paraphrasing where necessary) some of its principal conclusions and recommendations.
Oxford’s roads are close to a tipping point. With the levels of growth planned, congestion risks soon becoming unmanageable. Growth cannot succeed without addressing transport – but the usual approaches do not work. New roadbuilding is impossible and unwanted.
Cycling is the cheapest, least disruptive way to improve capacity quickly.
Cycling is not taken seriously enough. The council gives it relatively little budget and officer time. There remains, therefore, significant untapped cycling potential.
Provision in new developments is often disastrous. Planning policies which say all new development must be cycle-friendly are failing. Many new schemes do nothing for cycling, or even worsen it. If this continues, cycling in both cities will fall, not rise.
Perhaps the most important point the report makes is that good quality active travel infrastructure is essential. The particular importance of segregated provision is highlighted. In the words of the report, “Build it, and they will come”. This is not just an empty phrase. It is based on evidence but it needs political support, determination and financing. But if we are to build it, it needs financing and regulation.
7.Both of these issues are missing from the SATN report. Instead, there is a detailed analysis of options and methods for choosing particular routes, but this seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Before we spend ages fine-tuning which route should be a priority, we need policy decisions to increase the mount of money to be made available for active travel.
Money – the missing ingredient
8. OCC will not be able to build a strategic active travel network without a significant and sustained increase in funding for active travel. Once again, we refer to the report “Running out of Road”, which sets out some detailed proposals for the scale of investment that is needed.
Some years ago, Cycling UK urged local authorities to increase their investment in active travel and to protect it so that it was not used for schemes that were primarily focussed on building or expanding provision for motor vehicles.
Bike Safe urges the County to review the need for a clear and ambitious statement of intent to finance an expansion and improvement in active travel. Without more and reliable financing, the aspiration for a county wide strategic active travel network will come to nothing.
Planning and active travel
9. The draft report is also sadly silent on one other critical issue – how best to harness and apply planning rules to promote investment in a strategic active travel network. There are still far too many instances of commercial or housing developments taking place without adequate provision of high quality active travel infrastructure.
It is uneconomical, inefficient and inconsistent with broader policy commitments to approve new developments without making stringent demands on developers or employers. We give just one example of this – the plans to build more than 2,000 houses just to the north of Eynsham (the currently named Salt Cross development) along with a range of West Eynsham developments.
These plans provide no or, at best, very limited and inconvenient active travel connections between Salt Cross, Eynsham and West Eynsham. Unless OCC uses its full powers and levers of influence, we face the prospect of more than 3,000 houses being built with no incentive or encouragement at all for active travel. Instead of walking or cycling relatively short distances to do shopping, to go to school or to use sports facilities future residents will use motor vehicles.
It is in this way that the congestion that currently harms Oxford’s economy and attractiveness as a city will spread to outlying towns.
Bike Safe
July 2023