Impact case study database

1. Imagining the cyclist: changing a policy paradigm and related infrastructure design

Both local and national policy guidance has traditionally reproduced stereotypical images of cyclists as ‘fast commuters’ happy to share streets with heavy vehicles. In turn, these conceptualisations have shaped transport planning and design, creating a vicious circle whereby exclusionary infrastructure led to poor cycling experiences and low uptake, particularly by groups most sensitive to risk and discomfort, which in turn reinforced the view that only a small minority are able to cycle, leading planners to ignore the potential for mass cycling among wider populations.

This is encapsulated by the cover of the now superseded national English guidance, Cycle Infrastructure Design (Oct 2008) which depicts an ‘advisory cycle lane’ shared with motor traffic on a busy road (see image on the right) [a-i]. This is off-putting to risk adverse cyclists, as Aldred’s ‘near miss’ research attests [3], and, more generally, cycling infrastructure has been unsuitable for the diversity of potential and actual cyclists – for example, older people and people travelling with children [4].

Aldred’s research, which highlights the importance of expanding and diversifying our understanding of the (potential) cycle user, and her engagement activities with key governmental stakeholders, has changed the way the documents used by transport planners are designed and written and, in turn, resulted in the creation of inclusive infrastructure.

As a result of Aldred’s translation activities [a-ii], Transport for London (TfL), for instance, decided to use more inclusive images, language, and engineering specifications, e.g. adaptive bikes used by disabled people, within their 2018 Cycling Action Plan (see the image on the left). This guidance directly references Aldred’s work on cycling stigma [1] to justify this change in design guidance, stating: 'We can all work to normalise cycling, making it clear that it is something that everyone can do, with no special equipment or clothing required. A key part of this Plan is developing a more inclusive branding for London's cycle network, to make it appealing to more people” [a-iii, p.32].

Further, Aldred’s work in ‘critiquing and analysing continued inequalities in take-up […] has encouraged a continuing GLA (Greater London Authority) and TfL concern with “de-Lycrafying cycling”’ that has fed into infrastructure change in London [a-iv]. London’s former Deputy Mayor for Transport, ‘responsible for setting London’s transport policy and overseeing its delivery on behalf of the Mayor’, states that the ‘connections she [Aldred] has drawn between culture and infrastructure have encouraged us as London policy-makers to see infrastructural change as a way of enabling cultural change, through creating a virtuous feedback circle in which a more inclusive infrastructure helps shift perceptions of what it means to be “a cyclist”’ [a-iv]. In this way, Aldred ‘has been a key part of this process’ of ‘creat[ing] a nearly £1 billion 10-year programme that is designed to put London’s cycling facilities on a par with those in the best cycling cities in the world’ [a-iv].

Aldred’s impact on infrastructure guidance is further demonstrated by her contribution to the development of the new Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 1/20), published July 2020. The new guidance cites her evidence that ‘programmes of investment have illustrated that there is significant potential for change in travel behaviour and that more people cycle for everyday journeys where acceptable conditions are provided’ [a-v, p.16]. As such, the guidance ‘aims to help cycling become a form of mass transit in many more places’ by ‘boost[ing] design standards and improv[ing] safety’ [a-v, p.3]. Aldred sat on the steering group of experts who helped to develop the guidance through four in-person meetings and virtual discussions in-between these.

2. Providing an evidence-base for expanding active travel interventions in London

In March 2013 the TfL launched the £100m mini-Holland scheme in three Outer London boroughs, aimed at creating ‘dramatic change – not just for cyclists, but for everyone who lives and works there’ [b-i, p.16]. Implemented in 2016, the TfL committed to ongoing funding for a longitudinal study – ‘People and Places’, led by Aldred – that measures the impact of the mini-Holland scheme on active travel. Along with four academic outputs (including [6]) that draw on the findings of this study, Aldred’s team have produced annual reports for TfL. The latter are used in the TfL’s own Travel in London reports [b-ii, p.115], which ‘provide an interpretative overview of progress towards implementing the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, to inform future policy development’, and also provide ‘ an evidence and analysis base for the general use of stakeholders and policymakers whose responsibilities cover many different aspects of travel and transport in London’ [b-ii, p.7].

The impact of Aldred’s research project upon the policymaking of the TfL is demonstrated by the July 2020 Gear Change: A Bold Vision for Walking and Cycling document, where output [6] is cited as justification for the expansion of the mini-Holland scheme, which Aldred found had ‘increased [cycling] by 18 per cent and walking by 13 per cent in a single year’ [b-iii, p.19]. As a result, 12 non-London local authority areas will ‘benefit from intensive investment in mini-Holland schemes on the same model’, with the main focus being on replacing short car trips in places where cycling is currently low [b-iii, p.19].

3. Reducing near misses: police and transport authority action on close passes

West Midlands Police (WMP) describe how ‘Dr Aldred’s work’ on near miss experiences ‘gave us an evidence base to change driver behaviour around cyclists, firstly to create a safer environment that would encourage people to cycle & also to improve driver awareness around vulnerable road users reducing the amount of cyclists killed and injured on our roads’ [c-i]. This took the form of the UK’s first Close Pass Operation, which launched in August 2016. This approach uses plain-clothed officers on bikes who report close passes to a patrol car team, which can then stop the offending driver and educate and/or enforce. In its first year, WMP report that the operation reduced Killed and Seriously Injured [KSI] numbers by 20% (from 115 to 92) [c-ii], and in Nov 2018 the DfT reported that: ‘Since the launch of the operation in 2016, over 300 motorists have been stopped at the roadside for education and over 600 have been offered educational courses following third party reporting of a close passing incident’ [c-iii, p.43].

The DfT found that among the 14,000+ email responses from individuals and organisations to a call for evidence for their Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy: Safety Review, the enforcement of road traffic laws regarding close passing was the fourth most commonly raised topic regarding the laws and rules of the road [c-iv, p.13], and that ‘[m]any respondents highlighted the West Midlands Police initiative Operation Close Pass, as an example of a successful intervention combining enforcement with education to target drivers who do not give cyclists sufficient space when overtaking’ [c-iv, p.15].

On the basis of these responses and the WMP operation’s objective success, in June 2018 the DfT introduced ‘a new UK-wide initiative to help the police crackdown on close passing and provision of materials for police forces’ [c-iii, p.14]. This involves ‘working with West Midlands Police to produce educational materials and support for police forces so that more drivers are made aware of the need to leave safe distances when overtaking cyclists’ [c-iii, p.43]. This expansion of the closepass initiative is specified as Action 27 in the ‘Safer Passing and Overtaking’ package of the DfT’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy: Safety Review (Nov 2018) [c-iii, p. 63]. Since then, ‘Operation Closepass has subsequently been replicated by 27 Forces across the country’, and the WMP report that it also used ‘in 14 other countries worldwide’ [c-i].

Announcing this initiative, then Transport Minister Jesse Norman MP highlighted the importance of such a pedagogical approach: ‘We shouldn’t only concentrate on catching and punishing drivers when they make a mistake, but try to ensure that they have the skills and knowledge to drive safely alongside cyclists in all conditions’, as ‘we will only achieve our ambitious aims if people feel safe when they walk and cycle’ [c-v]. These aims relate to obtaining the ‘benefits of cycling’ for people, businesses, and ‘society as a whole’ – ‘better health’, ‘lower congestion, better air quality, and vibrant, attractive places’ [c-v].

4. Planning for potential cyclists, through measuring and estimating cycling potential

The Propensity to Cycle Tool [5] is an open access planning tool available since 2017. The PCT is helping to break down the barriers to cycling investment identified by Aldred and colleagues by providing a rigorous evidence base for the planning of cycling growth. The PCT allows authorities to choose an appropriate growth scenario, and to then quantify potential uplift in cycling in neighbourhoods and on routes. On this basis they can then prioritise investment in areas where they would expect to see change. In addition to her contributions to the design of the PCT software’s functionality, as the Policy and Practice Lead for the project team Aldred has played a key role in achieving the uptake of PCT by a range of planning authorities in the UK.

In their Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIP): Technical Guidance for Local Authorities of April 2017, the DfT ‘strongly recommended that authorities make use of the DfT-funded Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) through the LCWIP process’ and explained how it works [d-i, p.14-15]. As of July 2020, 81 public or voluntary sector organisations (mostly local/transport authorities) across England have since made reference to its use [d-ii]. These include major regional bodies, such as West Midlands Combined Authority, and Local Authorities (district, borough, and county councils), such as Derbyshire and Essex. These organisations have published 108 documents referring to use of the PCT, of which 74 contained detail of how they had used it. Most used at least one scenario of cycling uptake [5], with the most popular being the ‘Go Dutch’ scenario, whose use was described in 42 documents. This demonstrates wide use of the scenarios as well as high ambition. Take-up is particularly high in the South-East region (29 authorities using PCT) but present across all English regions [d-ii]. The impact of this usage of PCT is described below.

The Economic Advisor for Local Transport at DfT confirms that 46 Local Authorities who completed an LCWIP using PCT have received DfT support, noting that: ‘The PCT has enabled an evidence based way for each these local authorities to create and prioritise a pipeline of active travel schemes’ and has ‘also reduced the burden local authorities face when conducting appraisals of schemes’ [d-iii]. The Economic Advisor further specifies that the PCT has been ‘vital’ to applications for tranche 2 of the DfT’s ‘ Active travel fund’ for local transport authorities, which supports the creation of longer-term infrastructure projects, stating that: ‘A survey of bidders indicated that over 75% of non-London local authorities used the PCT or a separate prioritisation tool based on the PCT’ [d-iii]. According to the Advisor, ‘[t]his will significantly improve the likelihood that the £175m allocated in tranche 2 delivers value for money’ [d-iii].

The impact of PCT usage at the level of major regional bodies is demonstrable in Greater Manchester. On behalf of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), the PCT team produced a Greater Manchester Case Study, which was acknowledged by Chris Boardman MBE (Cycling and Walking Commissioner) in his Made to Move report that outlines a strategy to increase commuter cycling rates ‘ten-fold, from 2.2% to 21.3% of all journeys. This tool […] will be used to help prioritise investment” [d-iv, p.11]. In January 2020 it was confirmed that the PCT was used in the identification of ‘[t]hirteen “major trip generators” in Greater Manchester’, i.e. routes within ‘areas with the greatest propensity for modal shift to walking and cycling’ [d-v, p.24]. These routes constitute the Bee Network, a 10-year £1.5 billion project that takes the form of a ‘1,800-mile network of walking and cycling routes [that] will connect neighbourhoods, ensure children can make safe journeys independently and – most crucially – give people within our communities genuine choice about the way they make short journeys’ [d-v, p.7 & 5].