Unpopular Measures Are Necessary to Achieve ‘Modal Shift’, Expert Tells GBC

Published on: 13 Sep, 2018
Updated on: 13 Sep, 2018

By Laura Neuhaus

Initially unpopular measures, including road closures, might be necessary to achieve “modal shift”, or decreased use of private cars in Guildford in favour of more environmentally friendly forms of transport such as cycling, walking and use of public transport.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Guildford Borough Council (GBC), which provides advice and recommendations to the Executive Committee, attended by around 30 members of the public, met on Tuesday (September 11, 2018) to hear academic Dr Steve Melia from the University of West England give a presentation on his study of the subject including examples from other European cities.

INRIX table showing Guildford as the UK’s seventh most congested town or city.

Setting out some of the challenges the town faces, GBC’s major projects portfolio manager, Zac Ellwood said Guildford had been ranked as the UK’s seventh most congested town or city in 2017 (according to INRIX) and the council is searching for a sustainable way of reducing traffic volumes, given that planned expansion in housing proposed in the Local Plan will only further increase the pressure on local roads.

One of the slides presented showing the relative footprints of different forms of transport: bus, bikes and cars.

Ellwood continued to outline ongoing projects and traffic interventions. These include the investment in a new “Boris-bike” scheme, the possibility of two new trains stations – Guildford West in Park Barn and Guildford East in Merrow – and improvements to cycling and pedestrian routes.

But Dr Melia warned that such measures might not be radical enough. He gave a 30-minute presentation that considered the actions taken by other towns and cities internationally, such as Groningen and Guildford’s twin Freiburg, to reduce congestion and traffic. The expert concluded that sometimes the most effective means were “sticks” rather than “carrots”.

Sticks and carrots will be required.

The “sticks” were: road closures, de-prioritising cars and enforcing restrictive traffic measures that prioritise cyclists and pedestrians. Dr Melia pointed to several studies which demonstrated how widening roads only led to an increase in the volume of traffic, while instead, a decrease in road access would also lead to a decrease in traffic.

Dr Steve Melia, senior lecturer in transport and planning

The academic did acknowledge that such policies were often avoided by councillors desiring re-election, fearful of the public reaction. Road closures are bound to be unpopular. However, he urged that in the long term the policies would pay off and the public would eventually praise the change.

He added that the towns which have implemented such restrictive measures were “courageous” to do so, but now stand out as beautiful towns with greater public satisfaction.

The leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Spooner, who was not at the meeting, commented that “last night’s meeting and Dr Melia’s interesting views on this topic serve as a robust example of how we continue to welcome challenge to judgments and recommendations from both our specialist officers and our elected councillors.”

One such challenge came from Susan Parker (GGG, Send) who highlighted one of Dr Melia’s graphs (above). The chart demonstrated that building low-density housing, such as the GBC plans to do as part of its Local Plan, encourages private car ownership.

According to the expert, in common with other towns, Guildford is currently planning to increase road capacity to cope with further developments.

The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, according to Dr Melia, though the statistics show high-density housing has far lower private car ownership than lower density housing, away from town centres.

Cllr Caroline Reeves

Cllr Caroline Reeves (Lib Dem Friary & St Nicolas), who organised and chaired the meeting said today (September 13): “It was fantastic to see more members of the public at a scrutiny meeting on Tuesday evening, especially as I have put effort into publicising the dates and topics of the Overview & Scrutiny meeting programme. It shows that the topic was of interest and hopefully people will be encouraged to come and possibly even participate in future.

“The debate was very interesting and Dr Melia showed the challenges ahead if we are to truly engage in modal shift. The planned public consultations on the Strategic Development Framework will allow people to participate further. The real challenge will be making brave decisions in the town centre, we saw on Tuesday evening that there is always opposition but the outcome, invariably, is positive.”

Responses to Unpopular Measures Are Necessary to Achieve ‘Modal Shift’, Expert Tells GBC

Bernard Parke Reply

September 13, 2018 at 8:40 pm

Do they honestly think that high density housing will negate the wish for residents to own their own cars ?
John Ferns Reply

September 13, 2018 at 9:38 pm

‘Modal Shift’ to my mind is pure gobbledygook.

As a resident in Tongham, a semi-rural area, we have witnessed an intolerable level of development permissions in the last two years, not only in Ash/Tongham but also one mile away in Aldershot where the effects of the Wellesley development (4,000 dwellings) are beginning to be felt.

Couple this with limited, expensive and reducing bus services, narrow and increasingly overcrowded roads there is a nightmare for all workers travelling to and from work, and children, to and from school.

It is only to be expected that incomers (and more residents) will take to their cars, in preference to getting out their bicycles.

As for using “Shanks’s pony”, there is no hope. The new residents they will take up a gym membership and use their car to get to the gym.

And having followed the webcast, it is painful to have witnessed Dr Melia saying in answer to a question from Cllr Nigel Kearse [Con, South Ash & Tongham], our local councillor, that there was no answer as to how “Modal Shift” might be applied to rural areas.

I’m afraid that the Highways Department in Surrey County Council is to blame for blithely rubberstamping all development proposals in our area, slavishly following academic computer models, whilst totally disregarding the local knowledge and opinions of the residents, our local councillors and the borough Planning Committee.

Sadly, those responsible will be enjoying their index-linked pensions before the folly of their decisions is acknowledged.
- Ben Paton Reply
  
  September 14, 2018 at 10:04 pm
  
  More sense in this comment than in three years’ of pontification by the Executive member for infrastructure. Guildford’s transport plans are an intellectually dishonest afterthought to an unsustainable Local Plan.
Simon Schultz Reply

September 14, 2018 at 7:22 am

These measures would be quite popular with me. Filtered permeability (closing roads as through-roads to cars – while still allowing them access) is realistically the only way to make many local non-trunk roads safe for cycling and walking.
David Haskins Reply

September 14, 2018 at 9:10 am

None of this mentions the topology of Guildford – built at a river crossing and where high hills could be traversed. Cycling has never been that feasible because of these hills, though modern eBikes may fix this in time. The recent appalling new rail bridge on the B3000 does nothing to help – no cycle lane was added as “no cyclists ever use it”.

Well no, you would be dead if you tried. Getting to Guildford from Compton where I live is pretty well impossible other than walking an hour via Sandy Lane (sandy = no good for a bike). It is all very well having these dreams but with no joined-up anything they are pointless – like shrinking bus services, the bus station nowhere near the railway station, Park & Rides only part-time.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

September 14, 2018 at 9:18 am

I watched the webcast Modal Shift presentation and I was disappointed that so much time was taken up in presenting what the council was doing in the way of creating a sustainable corridor in the west of the town and gearing up to replace Walnut Footbridge etc. I suspect those present and those who are interested in such matters already knew about these projects.

Dr Melia’s presentation was interesting but he obviously hasn’t the local knowledge, nor could he be expected to offer any solution for Guildford apart from restating the already known analyses of how road expansion does not always solve congestion. More time should have been spent on how the councils expect to solve the problem with real solutions rather than dwell on the theoretical stuff. Councils should consider engaging consultants like Dr Melia to do so.

Guildford’s roads are too narrow to accommodate dedicated cycle and pedestrian routes through most parts of the town centre and elsewhere. Forcibly reducing traffic lanes to create such routes would only increase congestion elsewhere and also increase pollution until a substantial number of cars become electric. Again transition to electric cars would require an enormous increase in the electricity grid capacity nation-wide and this would take a very long time.

So, the solution is to divert traffic to make room for safe pedestrian and cycle routes, but where to? Stopping up of roads going into the town centre must provide alternative routes through the surrounding areas but without building bypasses, existing “rat runs” would become totally inoperable.

Guildford does not lend itself to the building of ring roads other than in tunnels and that solution is expensive. Shorter tunnels to cater for specific problems could provide some answers. Putting the A281 Millbrook and Onslow Street stretch underground would free up the town centre for pedestrians and cyclists but to cater for the increased volume of traffic from developments within and outside the borough, tunnels, bypasses, flyovers and bridges to take traffic to the A3 would be necessary.

Councils should concentrate on finding real solutions rather than carry out umpteen studies. They should appoint consultants to come up with schemes and then discuss, and home in on, acceptable solutions. Make developments subject to funding of infrastructures by the central government in addition to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) from the developers.

Currently, there is a shortfall of £2 billion for infrastructure in Surrey and £550m for Guildford. Modal shift is all very good but the net effect on traffic would be minimal considering how few are likely to switch.

The terrain and climate cause many to reject walking and cycling and car travel is likely to remain the favoured option for many.

Growth in traffic might decrease as more work from home and use the internet for online shopping and delivery but there would still be some growth on top of current congestion. Therefore making the road network suitable for traffic including future growth should be a serious consideration.

Unfortunately, Modal Shift will not shift the problem.
Bernard Parke Reply

September 14, 2018 at 1:53 pm

They seem to be straying into the realms of fantasy again. These measures will certainly not help the dwindling high street retail trade.

Do they honestly believe that the residents in the town centre will give up their wishes to own a car? Do they also believe that would be visiting shoppers will not shop elsewhere?

Not even the underused Onslow Park & Ride, like other Park & Ride services, operates on Sundays.