The challenges of using evidence-based approaches

to make effective transport policy

Dr Andy Cope January 31, 2018

We know that walking and cycling are great ways to keep fit and prevent harmful
pollution. Yet we also know that, for a variety of reasons, people aren’t always
keen on them as a means of getting around. Sustrans is the charity that’s making it
easier for people to walk and cycle. We're working with families, communities,
policy-makers and partner organisations across the UK to encourage active travel.

We pride ourselves on basing our activities in support of active travel on a solid

evidence base. We were very proud to have our work featured in a recent UN
report as an example of good practice at the science-policy interface. But the
connection between evidence, policy, and investment decisions in transport is
sometimes hard to fathom.

Despite the strength of evidence on the benefits associated with walking and
cycling (primarily relating to public health benefits of increased physical activity,
but also in other areas such as reduced emissions, and improved air quality), it
remains challenging to secure significant investment in active travel. The balance
of policy and investment is heavily skewed towards ‘big infrastructure’ and
technological innovation.

Some of the constraints that seem to dictate this poor translation of evidence into
practice include: i) the limitations of cost–benefit analysis mechanisms; ii) too
much faith in technological quick-fixes; and iii) the adherence to predict and
provide policies. These constraints result in funding decisions such as a £15
billion Road Investment Strategy in England, whilst local streets receive very little
funding for infrastructure that makes them better spaces for people to use.

In theory, UK transport investment decisions are made on the basis of economic

appraisal and cost-benefit analysis. Newly published research on cost benefit
analysis is clear about the gaps. Weaknesses in forecasting, disregard for benefit
distribution and equity, and the application of dubious techniques (for example,
valuing small time savings, and discounting) all bring into question the veracity of
an approach that works within the realms of similar projects (for example,
comparing one road scheme with another road scheme). But how does one treat a
local walking and cycling network in relation to a road building scheme in this
context?

The misplaced optimism in the technological quick-fixes of the future is also an

area where huge evidence disconnects can be observed. A big part of the emphasis
on investment in transport research and development is focussed on, for example:

• Electric vehicles – without recognition that on the one hand carbon

emissions from energy generation are displaced (from the tailpipe to the
power station chimney) rather than eliminated, and on the other hand
 45% of particulate matter from traffic comes from brake and tyre wear
(as distinct from fuel combustion), so poor air quality remains an issue.
• Autonomous vehicles – despite the lack of any evidence about either
consumer demand or the impact on traffic patterns.
• 'Mobility-as-a-service’ provision – with scant regard for the fact that for
many companies entering the market are doing so with the object of
consumer data harvesting, rather than through any concern about
mobility and accessibility.

The major risk is that we lose sight of what might already be possible. A new
paper from a network of European cities and regions cooperating for innovative
transport solutions on the future for autonomous vehicles expresses concern about
the social distribution of impacts, and also concludes that “if a transport authority
wishes to pave the way for fewer private vehicles, bold planning decisions could
already be made today to accelerate the uptake and dependence on public
transport, cycling, walking.”

The adherence to predict and provide policies is a further misguided constraint in

transport planning. In crudest terms, we look at past travel demand patterns, and
we assume that the future will need ‘more of that’. This disregards any possibility
of change, whether it be travel demand management, changing lifestyle patterns
(for example, fewer younger people than ever own cars or even driving licenses),
or even technological shift. The current Roads Investment Strategy does not reflect
Government policies on environment and public health, does not align with
changing societal patterns, and largely ignores the possible future automation of
the fleet. A recently published research paper goes so far as to question whether
continued adherence to predict and provide reveals an underlying, if unstated “real
policy of car provision … and is the result of the influence of a powerful roads
industry lobby”, whilst also noting that road building has little impact on
economic activity, and cannot be relied on to kick-start the UK economy.

The net effect of these constraints is an evidence-policy-investment disconnect.

This disconnect in transport policy plays out very emphatically in air quality,
where contradictions across policy areas introduce the risk of overall policy
failure: pollution policies are not effectively integrated; transport policies either
disregard air quality implications or are too heavily focussed on distant-future
technology-led solutions; and health policies are too heavily focussed on remedial
‘cure’ work, rather than prevention. The continued investment in road
‘improvement’ does not seem to align well with other aspects of policy on air
quality.

These contradictions need to be resolved if we are to have a coherent transport

strategy. The effective application of evidence is crucial in enabling this to
happen. Sustrans believes that active travel should lie at the heart of that transport
strategy.

Dr Andy Cope is the Director of Insight at Sustrans

http://green.brightblue.org.uk/blog/2018/1/30/the-­‐challenges-­‐of-­‐using-­‐
evidence-­‐based-­‐approaches-­‐to-­‐make-­‐effective-­‐transport-­‐policy