Have we always had the answer to Traffic in Towns?

As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the publication of the nominal report Traffic in Towns by Sir Colin Buchanan, I decided to leaf through my copy of the report one more time. One more time I marvelled at the breadth of issues covered in that report, at the emphasis it had placed on the environmental impact of traffic, of its warnings about the future and even of its use of the English language, beautiful and easy to understand by everyone.

And yet, there are those who at times have criticised the report. Invariably they will say that ‘’It placed undue emphasis on bypasses’’ or ‘’it encouraged the use of multi-storey car parks’’ and so on. It is easy to be critical in hindsight but in my own view at least, the report was a turning point. It demanded the setting of environmental standards; it asked for a much improved concept of professional collaboration with greater emphasis on mixed-team working; and it warned that it will be easily within our ability to ruin this island by the end of the century. The greater part of it could easily degenerate into a wilderness of sprawled-out, uncoordinated development.

The report was prophetic and very important.

However, there is one criticism of the report that I have always found hard to defend against -and that’s the suggested separation in the report of pedestrians from traffic. The illustration (see below) of how the Tottenham Court Road area can be tackled has stayed vividly in people’s minds and has remained proof that, in this instance, Sir Colin and his team had got it wrong.

But have they?

Let’s start by asking the obvious question: would it have been more acceptable if they had suggested the reverse, i.e., keep pedestrians on the ground and put traffic either in a tunnel below or on an elevated structure? This would clearly not have worked at all for many reasons, not least the environmental impact as well as the cost of such a solution. The inevitable conclusion is that the authors of the report were simply being pragmatic.

That pragmatism has manifested itself in numerous places since then. Is this proof that the idea is, if not justifiable, at least acceptable? Let us consider some examples. Elevated walkways have become the norm in places such as Dubai (protecting pedestrians from the extreme heat), Hong Kong (humidity) and Canada (extreme cold). In fact, Canada (and many other places) have extended the idea from humans to animals with elevated walkways being designed as a continuation of the natural kingdom (see pic).

It would appear that the suggestion in the report has a number of applications that make sense. Is it wrong being pragmatic?

In my view pragmatism is acceptable in many situations but could the question be turned on its head by asking - is it wrong to be bold?

Whilst accepting that the car’s onslaught on our lives is real, could we be a little more imaginative about how to tackle it? It was many years after the report’s publication when such ideas started to surface. For example, the idea of shared space, whose protagonist was the Dutch Hans Monderman, caused a strong reaction amongst engineers in the early 80's. The application of this concept in a number of different places has often produced admirable results but people are still fearful of applying it on a wider scale - and engineers continue to design the road network very much as before. Why? There can only be one reason for this - that’s what they have been taught to do! Does this mean that we need to re-consider our educational system?

More recently there has been another bold initiative with the introduction (particularly since Covid) of the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) approach. Is this faring better? The populist (and political) reaction to such schemes from across the country would suggest otherwise. Why? Possibly because such schemes try to forcibly remove the car. Force is never appropriate and very rarely works.

What then? What are we left with?

I have long held the view that, instead of seeking to eliminate the car from our world (something impossible and impractical) we should seek to tame it, instead - i.e. make it subordinate to human activity. I have often provocatively said to friends that many people mistakenly believe that roads are for cars! They are not; they are for MOVEMENT (and that very definitely means the movement of much more than cars).

On a recent trip to Canada, I have seen how others have attempted to change that relationship and mostly succeeded. Many Canadian towns as well as their bigger cities such as Vancouver and Calgary work on two key principles - low speeds and excellent pedestrian infrastructure. These two applications lead to a reduction in car dominance. But there is still a third factor which is required in order to be successful and that is respect. It is clear from what I have witnessed that drivers are respectful of each other and of pedestrians as well as cyclists. They are always looking out for them and this is something which reminded me of the late Ben Hamilton-Baillie’s philosophy based on drivers making eye contact with other road users. Once that contact is made the dehumanisation effect of the car breaks down. Put in another way - the car is subjugated and it stops being the king of the road.

How do we arrive at such a scenario? Quite simply through a change in behaviour - the behaviour/approach of the designer but also the behaviour of all road users.

People and communities need to learn to respect each other. This will make them look out for each other. They also need to be law-abiding. On a recent trip to Zurich, I saw schoolchildren crossing busy streets unescorted. Why do they (and their parents) feel that it would be safe for children to do that? Because they knew that car drivers were law abiding and they would not jump the red light.

In fact, once you reach that level of understanding and respect, you may not even need traffic lights! Again, going back to my Canada trip, I was bemused to observe that many crossroads were not even signalised. It was left to the drivers themselves to show the necessary civility in negotiating the junction -even though in some cases it was a very large junction.

Yet one last traffic sign said it all for me. Be courteous! Show respect to people and simply be courteous. Such a simple message with significant consequences.

My conclusion? Elevated walkways are the answer in many different situations but of course they are not the only (or the best) answer everywhere. Other concepts have been attempted since the Buchannan report 60 years ago such as LTNs, Shared Spaces, vehicle underpasses etc but none of these represent the universal panacea that we are all looking for.

So, did the report get this particular point wrong? I think that they were correct in giving pedestrians their own space but they were not daring enough in attempting to subjugate the car. Of course, in many cases the car cannot be subjugated as it is still the most convenient means of moving about. However, where speeds and volumes are both low, I believe that the existing order can be reversed.

How can that be achieved? The answer in my view does not depend on technical solutions. It depends on the values that we hold as a society. The answer lies with people’s education, their sense of community and the level of respect that we show to each other.

The answer is neither complex nor complicated. It is very simple.? ?

?

?

?