Oxford: Why your country needs you

'The country needs you to do this.''

Those were the opening remarks of National Active Travel commissioner Chris Boardman’s at last week’s national conference in Oxford - as he pointedly addressed local councillors, professionals and advocates.

For Oxford is arguably the centre of sustainable transport change in England right now (outside London).

Bus-priority streets, 20mph limits,? traffic-free lanes, school streets, pedestrianised streets, controlled parking zones, electric charging hubs, low-traffic neighbourhoods, an ultra low emission zone - these are all taking shape in the city.

They do not just sit in a dusty strategy document, they are being implemented, step by step. For people like me who support this approach, we desperately need a new success story here in England.?

Oxford, take a bow.

Just walk out the train station, where the thousands of bikes are already outgrowing the cycle parking, and walk to historic Broad Street - home to some of the city’s greatest jewels, such as the Bodleian library.

Broad Street is now a welcoming traffic-free space where you can dwell and hear the pleasant sound of people’s voices, rather than engines and exhausts.

It is an irony not lost on Andrew Gant, the Lib Dem cabinet member responsible for transport on Oxfordshire county council, that protestors wanting to complain about some of these measures chose to assemble on Broad Street, precisely because of its now a fine, public, open space.

Gant doesn’t seem like a typical politician. Calm, measured, under-stated - he is utterly convinced that change has to happen.?

He spoke with quiet but steely determination as he welcomed 800 delegates to last week’s conference - playing to a home crowd sure - but with a shrewd and balanced reminder of the problem.

That doing the right thing, does not make it the easy thing.

A classical musician by profession, he seemed reassuringly unruffled by the noise around some of the measures - notably low traffic neighbourhoods. Though he said he is ‘getting a little tired’ of re-editing his wikipedia page to remove malicious untruths…

Gant is clear about the goal - one in four car journeys to be replaced by other modes by 2030. One in three by 2040.

He is also clear about the challenges he and his fellow elected members and officers face;-

• Pressure for ‘economic growth’ versus reducing car use
• Limited type and availability of funding?
• Finding the right partners?
• ‘The nature of the opposition’?

On that last one, he says Oxford’s journey has led him to witness ‘a side of human nature he did not know existed’.

So it is in this context that his address to the Cycle County Active County conference, was followed by Boardman - who took a moment to acknowledge that right here was where change is at, and to praise people like Gant who are forging on while taking the flak.

‘Thank you’, Boardman said slowly, deliberately and humbly.

‘Thank you for standing up to all the rhetoric and vitriol,? in wanting to give people a better life.

‘I hope in two years people will fight you just as hard if you try to take it away again’.

‘’It’s not hyperbole to say that the country needs you to do this - to create examples on such a scale’’’ Boardman said with a passion, to spontaneous applause.

One of the things that seems really interesting about Oxford is that the change seems to be being led by coalitions that cut across divisions of party and sector.

For instance, Gant stood down from his role as leader of the Lib Dems and official opposition within the Labour-led city council, in order to take up his cabinet transport role within the county council - in which the Lib Dems have an equal number of seats as the Conservatives and rule in coalition with Labour and the Greens.

It seems the key determinant of political will for making meaningful change on transport, is still an individual politician’s personal beliefs, not their party.

‘We couldn’t do this without a coalition of support’?

Another feature of this ‘coalition’ approach has been the Coalition for Healthy Streets and Active Travel (CoHSAT).?

CoHSAT is a group of voluntary and campaigning organisations ‘whose role is to amplify member and partner voices, facilitate discussion, and increase engagement on healthy streets and active travel’.

The organisation takes a positive and constructive approach - it and its partners were praised publicly by Gant and other local councillors during the conference. ‘We simply could not be doing this without them.’

Gant and his colleagues have wisely broadened their approach to work with key sectoral influencers too.

One key ally is the director of public health, Ansaf Azhar, appointed just before the Covid pandemic.

Azhar is quick to deal with the stereotypical argument that changes like this are ‘all well and good for a wealthy, middle-class place like Oxfordshire’ (my paraphrasing) - pointing out there are 10 areas of the county which are among the 20 % most deprived parts of the country.?

His talk sets out the public health case indisputably - especially for those in the most deprived areas. He includes one astonishing slide showing that only about 20% of a person’s health is down to the health care system - with 10% down to their built environment.

This clear narrative - why these changes are needed (physical and mental health, the bottom line), and who benefits (children, older people, disadvantaged areas) - are exactly where we need to place the public discourse on this topic. Not on the fake culture wars being stirred up for clicks.

‘We don’t need any more evidence’

On that note, the local Oxford paper ran several critical headlines this week - the latest that traffic filters will ruin business.

A cursory study of the related Tweet threads, shows for every few people convinced this is the right thing to do - there is at least one convinced it's a disaster.

This polarisation can be a vast sink hole for wasted energy, as people seek to rebut arguments, back and forth, point by point.?

Misinformation experts advise not only is this usually a waste of time as it will rarely change a mind due it resonating with that person’s ‘core beliefs’ - it can actually make matters worse, as it further surfaces the ‘misfacts’ and can even make them more memorable.

Furthermore, if on social media, the resulting back-and-forth engagement, feeds algorithms that surface the interactions higher up people’s feeds.

To cite Boardman again: The evidence is beyond refute.

‘When you see the benefits that come from these changes - it’s a no-brainer. So the real question is - why aren’t we doing this? Why isn’t this happening??

‘And the answer is not that we need evidence - that’s done, so we should stop talking about it. What we have to overcome is unfortunately much more powerful.’

It’s called Loss Aversion.?

Unfortunately, it's well-documented that for humans - fear of loss is more powerful than pleasure of any associated gains.

‘And that fear can be stirred up easily’, said Boardman.

Not if but how?

One thing I’ve noticed that those areas really pressing on with change seem to have in common, is leaders who understand this - that ‘opposition’ does not mean they or their teams are doing something wrong.?

Indeed it's inevitable.?

And that they are equally clear that not changing is not an option; as Oxford’s transport strategy states - the city is heading for an unfathomable 13,000 extra car journeys A DAY, if something isn’t done.

Listening to Gant, or Claire Holland in Lambeth; or Scott Arthur in Edinburgh, or Lee Waters in Wales outline the case for change and amid personally making it happen? - the question they are prepared to take on is not if to change, but how.?

For those politicians yet to get there, one wonders why, given as all their data will tell them, there really is no way to continue.?

Are they generalists who have yet to really understand the problem or the solutions? Are they political pragmatists who understand the need for change - but want someone else to introduce it so they don’t have to take the criticism?

While there are undoubtedly a few key narrative truths that can help us help build political will - eg centreing people who benefit yet have less of a voice, such as kids or older people, highlighting the positive way this addresses inequality, spelling out the health or business angles..

It is the case that most politicians want to hear that this agenda is a vote winner (or at least not a vote killer).?

So it was a smart move for Oxford this week that saw CoHSAT publish this - a robust, independent survey from polling agency YouGov showing support for Low Traffic Neighourhoods is still strong.?

And this came out alongside another piece of research, this time from the Active Travel Academy, - showing that low traffic neighbourhoods are not vote killers.?

It was cited in this super useful thread summarising various studies, from Oxford’s Green councillor Emily Kerr, who was among several local councillors at the event.

?

Boardman is right about not needing evidence of the problem.

But we do need more evidence about public support, both qualitative (real people’s stories) and quantitative (polls and surveys).

And it's politicians who need convincing.

With that ATA study showing that not a single Conservative councillor tweeted a positive sentiment about low traffic schemes during the course of the 2022 local elections in London, the recent national funding cuts, and this week’s approval of the new Stonehenge road - it seems this current government is a lost cause as far as this agenda is concerned, and little will change until a new regime is in place.

Where are the Labour party on this nationally?

They’ve been increasingly forthright on the need to completely reform public transport - particularly buses which are the workhorses of our transport network; as well as local government generally in order to devolve more powers.

And shadow transport minister Loiuse Haigh has questioned the government on funding for active travel, and taken them to task for that sneaky multi-million pound backpedal.

But words setting out how the Labour Party will rectify this, and the vital role active travel plays in a revamped, sustainable national public transport network, are few and far between (pls comment if you can find any!).

Perhaps it's understandable that Labour keeps its cards close to its chest rather than line up hypothetical pot shots for other parties.?

‘What we will deliver will not be pre-announced’ Labour front bencher Ruth Cadbury MP said firmly when asked about this on the opening panel (she chairs the All Party Group on Cycling & Walking and sits on the Transport Committee).

She added that ‘Route to the Manifesto’ is happening now, whereby local party groups feed into the leadership ahead of this autumn’s party conference.

But it is also the case that national organisations - such as members of England’s national coalition the?Walking and Cycling Alliance - are a little concerned.?

‘Lukewarm,’ is the readout of current support for this agenda from Haigh and other Labour leadership.

'For the benefit of all'

I spoke to a contact working in a council in England, who shared a scenario I suspect will be typical across the land and I think symbolises the challenge here.

He presented an innovative, multi-million scheme to local stakeholders; big and bold? changes to road layouts in favour of bus, walking and cycling, wth greening and placemaking thrown in. And for all the right reasons - tackling? congestion, pollution, climate, health.

But what came back from local councillors was concern for ‘hard-working drivers in a cost of living crisis’.?

Clearly, we need to consider how to meet this point - that those who have the least don’t just want better public transport, they want to earn more money to afford a car to drive, and maybe move to a house with a driveway where they can park several.

The car is not the enemy. But neither is it the solution, without parameters.

Which is why we need places like Oxford - and Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham and many more - to begin to show how this can be done, done well, and done for the benefit of all.