What’s holding us back?
New infrastructure, such as changes to the road layout or the railway network, can be very expensive. It seems unlikely that there will be much new investment for London in the next few years.
Historically, where there has been new infrastructure investment, it has tended to favour business and commuter travel, prioritising economic over social gains. Some changes to support active travel, such as introducing benches or cycle parking, are relatively less expensive – but still a significant cost for cash-strapped and time-poor local authorities. Without changes to transport infrastructure, many people will continue to rely on their car for much of their travel.
Many of the recommendations in this report are not new. However, this raises the question of why more change has not happened – and why it has occurred in some places rather than others. In this chapter, we explore why.
Barriers to different modes of travel
Public transport
Public transport use is often held back because of the high capital cost of new infrastructure. The costs are highest for major rail projects like the Elizabeth Line, which totalled £19 billion. 64 Historically, decisions about major public transport investment in Britain have been made according to HM Treasury “Green Book” costings, which place a high value on economic gains from commuter and business travel. 65 This has led to more investment for London and the South East; it has also led to radial and intercity commuter services being prioritised over local and orbital services used by people on family, caregiving or leisure trips. Some argue that the focus on the business case can stop good schemes from happening.
In the last few years, advocates for London have been concerned that central government’s priority on spending in areas outside London will reduce the capital investment available within London. It is probably too soon to tell what difference this will make to infrastructure spending in the medium term. 66 Public transport in areas immediately surrounding London tends to be less comprehensive, so improvements to the public transport offered in these areas could have a meaningful effect on people’s travel options in London and further afield.
Bus and tram travel in London is fairly cheap by comparison both to other parts of England and to Tube travel within the capital. 67 This is because TfL subsidises bus use from Tube fares – a broadly redistributive policy, since Tube passengers tend to be wealthier than bus passengers. 68 However, this makes it harder for TfL to create new bus routes or increase capacity even where there is demand, since new bus services are unlikely to pay for themselves. Nonetheless, there have been calls to further reduce the cost of bus travel, or even to make it free entirely. 69 In London, this would require additional funding to be made available to Transport for London, through funding or fiscal devolution.
Demand Responsive Transport schemes (DRT: small buses offering on-demand trips) have been trialled in Ealing and Sutton as an alternative to car use. However, they are costly to run, and evaluations have been mixed. 70 Although results so far are only indicative, it seems unlikely that DRT will become a major part of London’s public transport system in the short term, although it may well be used in less densely populated parts of the capital and areas where there is less congestion. Within London, physical constrains on the size of roads can be a constraint to expanding bus services because of the difficulty of prioritising bus traffic.
Active travel
Active travel improvements usually cost less than major public transport projects, but they mostly fall to local authorities, whose budgets are under severe pressure. 71 Some of the funding that is available from central or city government is subject to competitive bidding processes, and we have heard that making these applications is time-consuming and inefficient, with local authorities citing uncertainty about future funding as a barrier to efficiency. 72
Building segregated cycle lanes for new routes in outer London can be extremely expensive for local authorities. As well as capital funding to install new infrastructure, it is important that funding also exists to maintain it, keeping it both safe and attractive to use. To fund this work, some call for new measures such as directing revenue from LTN-associated traffic cameras to fund sustainable travel investments.
Many organisations have a financial interest in increasing car sales or in building new public transport infrastructure. There is much less scope for profit in increased walking, and few people see “being a pedestrian” in a town or city as part of their identity. As such, it is harder for well-funded advocacy groups to assemble around pedestrian improvements: some charities work in this area but their capacity is inevitably limited. In recent years local air pollution campaign groups have become more prominent, though anecdotally they are more active in inner London than outer London. Organisations dedicated to cycling in the UK have been successful in improving bike infrastructure. However, many of these improvements have been to commuter cycle routes 73 – which risks reinforcing the existing gender imbalance in cycling, as women are more likely to make family or caregiving trips. 74
There can be a tension between providing active travel infrastructure (e.g. cycle lanes) and prioritising bus lanes. The appropriate solution is likely to vary depending on local circumstances, with different areas trying different solutions. In the meantime, London TravelWatch is calling on London boroughs to make existing bus lanes 24/7 (except at clearly defined loading times), and to enforce parking restrictions on bus routes to speed up buses. 75
Private cars
Interventions that make it harder for people to use private cars – through blocking access, increasing costs or making it harder to park – tend to be controversial. Ideas for implementing them are sometimes blocked. Such objections are often noisy and well organised, but it is important not to exaggerate the scale or longevity of their support. Although LTN schemes were often presented by both proponents and opponents as being new and radical, London has a long history of similar driving restrictions: the first LTN-type scheme was introduced in the 1970s in De Beauvoir, Hackney. 76 When the Congestion Charge and inner London ULEZ were introduced in 2003 and 2021 respectively, objections fell back after the schemes were introduced. 77 Moreover, if politicians attempt to reverse existing driving-restriction schemes, they can run into serious opposition – this has happened recently in Tower Hamlets. 78
31 per cent of households in outer London do not have access to a private car or van, and there will be even more people who do not use their household’s vehicles much or at all – for example, because the car is always used by one person for work. 79 Moreover, drivers are not necessarily opposed to restrictions or higher costs on cars: Centre for London’s polling shows that there is little difference in support for road user charging between drivers and non-drivers. 80 Research by the Campaign for Better Transport found that half of people (49 per cent) supported the idea of replacing the existing vehicle taxation system with “pay as you drive” (or road user charging) – while only 18 per cent thought it was a bad idea. Support also rose following discussion about what this would mean. 81
Shared schemes
Car club schemes have not attracted the same level of controversy as schemes affecting private cars, but their spread across London is inconsistent. 82 This is partly due to local variation in demand, but also because car club regulation is a matter for local authorities, whose policies vary. Interviewees told us that the amount of money that operators are expected to pay for a car club bay, and the time taken for a new scheme or bay to be approved, varies considerably between boroughs. In theory, local authorities could offer discounts to operators of shared schemes in order to increase both supply and local awareness of the option – but stretched budgets can make it very difficult to do so. While local authorities can negotiate the fee that car clubs pay to operate in the area, the cost that consumers pay is set by car club companies.
Shared bike and scooter schemes have been more controversial, but as with some car restriction schemes, the nature of people’s concerns has changed over time. At the start of the scheme, there was significant opposition to the TfL shared bike docks being installed. 83 Today, there seem to be more people lobbying to expand the scheme than lobbying to restrict it. 84 While serious and valid objections have been raised to undocked bike and scooter schemes – due to vehicles left blocking pavements 85 – the major barriers to expanding these schemes into outer London seem to be ones of scale and density rather than public opposition. Introducing more safe cycle lanes and providing cycle parking at regular intervals – at least one every 250 metres, according to one expert – could help to increase supply.
Who stands to win and lose from change?
All policy changes have advantages and disadvantages. Often these advantages and disadvantages will fall more on particular groups of people – changes which are known as equality impacts. The table below gives some high-level examples of equality impacts, though the specifics will of course vary with each situation. We have not included economic gains and losses, but they are covered elsewhere in the report.
In all cases where public money is spent, there is an opportunity cost in that the money could have been spent elsewhere – perhaps to the benefit of a particular group. Since this is hard to track, we have not included its impact here.
We know that climate change will affect some groups more than others, but due to the difficulty of linking local action to global climate outcomes, we have not included this consideration here.
| Type of intervention | Groups who might gain | Groups who might lose |
| Making it more expensive to drive for all cars (e.g. Congestion Charge, flat parking rates) | People most affected by air pollution (children, older people, those with respiratory illnesses) 86 | People who need to drive (especially older people and those with certain disabilities) |
| Making it cheaper to drive lower-polluting cars than higher-polluting cars (e.g. ULEZ, graded parking rates) | People most affected by air pollution (children, older people, those with respiratory illnesses) | People who need to drive and live on low incomes (especially older people and those with certain disabilities) |
| LTNs/modal filters, which restrict through-driving at all times in residential areas | People most affected by air pollution People most affected by pedestrian/vehicle accidents (children and older people) |
People who need to drive and whose journeys are time-sensitive (especially those who need to attend medical appointments) |
| School streets, which restrict driving near schools at certain times | People most affected by air pollution People most affected by pedestrian/vehicle accidents (children and older people) |
People who need to drive and whose journeys are time-sensitive (especially those who need to attend medical appointments) |
| Building new radial transport infrastructure (e.g. trains, bike lanes to the city centre) | People who commute to the city centre (more likely to be male, higher income) | People who park or drive private cars on these routes, as they may have less access to road space |
| Building new orbital transport infrastructure (e.g. trains, bike lanes between suburban areas) | People who don’t commute to the city centre (more likely to be female, lower income) | People who park or drive private cars on these routes, as they may have less access to road space |
| Building new local cycling infrastructure (e.g. segregated bike lanes and bike parking) | People who cycle (or might cycle) – especially those who are particularly safety conscious, often including women and families | People with physical disabilities (if bike lanes or bike parking spaces block pavement access). We believe this is unlikely in most parts of outer London, as busy “cycle superhighways” are unlikely to be needed. |
| Improving lighting for active travel and public transport (e.g. on the pavement and near bike parking and bus stops) | Women (due to concerns about safety) Older people (due to age-related decline in vision) |
Unlikely to be direct impacts, unless people’s homes are impacted by brighter lighting (which can generally be avoided with good design) |
| Making it more pleasant to walk (e.g. by improving seating, shade, and planting on high streets) | People who need to sit down while walking (particularly older people and those with certain disabilities) | Unlikely to be direct impacts –though planners need to take care not to obstruct wheelchair access on the pavement |
| Reducing fares on bus and tram | People who are more likely to use these modes (generally people on lower incomes) | Unlikely to be direct impacts (except through opportunity costs) |
| Reducing fares on Tube and rail | People who are more likely to use these modes (generally people on higher incomes) | Unlikely to be direct impacts (except through opportunity costs) |
Outer London in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy
Sadiq Khan’s 2021 Manifesto promised to “work with TfL on a strategy for the suburbs” 87 including bus, rapid bus transit and trams. At the time of writing no such strategy has been published. However, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy does include a number of commitments specific to or especially relevant to outer London, including:
- Improving the walking and cycling environment.
- Supporting the provision of car clubs.
- Refocusing bus provision on outer London, especially in areas of high housing growth.
- Considering the introduction of express bus routes to outer London destinations.
- Introducing bus transit networks and considering demand-responsive services.
- Seeking the “metroisation” of some outer London rail services. 88
While some progress has been made on improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure, there has been less progress on bus expansion. The recently announced “Superloop” orbital bus route may improve this. The COVID-19 pandemic and the financial problems it caused for TfL have made public transport improvements much harder, but the underlying need for more sustainable options has not changed.
An Outer London Transport Strategy, or more detail on outer London in the existing Transport Strategy, could add to the existing Mayor’s commitments. It could:
- Consider proposals for more frequent services (especially during weekends and holidays) to help people use public transport for leisure purposes – as well as supporting people who work atypical hours or shifts.
- Commit to additional funding for the development of sustainable transport infrastructure in outer London, such as dedicated cycle lanes, pedestrian crossings, walkways, and major projects such as improvements to train stations.
- Commit to specific transport interventions that grow connections between different areas of outer London and address its demographics – particularly the needs of elderly residents and families with children – as well as areas outside London.
In producing this strategy, the Mayor should work closely with a variety of organisations including the London boroughs, sub-regional partnerships, active travel and accessibility groups, environmental charities, national government, and private transport operators.