00Executive summary
“Transport is one of the highest levels,” the Prime Minister said in his recent speech to the party conference. Few would disagree. Commentators and politicians often identify the lack of public transport infrastructure as the main cause of inequality between regions.
The Center for Cities’ work has shown that the biggest challenge to settlement is getting Britain’s largest cities outside London functioning again. It lags far behind its Western European counterparts, and this poor performance costs the UK economy several billion pounds each year. Again, the gap in transport infrastructure is regularly cited as a key difference between the two groups, but there has been no systematic research to understand the impact of the difference.
However, this research systematically compares transport networks in the center of the UK’s largest cities outside London with their equivalents in Western Europe (these networks experience the highest demand for public transport). Find:
At peak times, compared to Europe, fewer people can enter Britain’s major city centres, suggesting that they are much smaller than their population numbers suggest. Getting on public transport from suburbs to city centers is becoming easier and faster in Europe – on average, 67% of people can do it within 30 minutes, compared to about 40% in Britain. This reduces the benefits offered to companies that locate here. The area covered by public transport networks in major British cities is not always smaller than that in major European cities. In five of the nine largest cities outside London, the area within a 30-minute drive is similar to its European counterparts. But in all of Britain’s major cities, fewer people live near the centre, so it is difficult for public transport to accommodate large numbers of passengers. European cities have much more mid-rise buildings, and apartment living is more common, so more people stay close to public transport. British cities’ reliance on terraced and semi-detached housing has had the opposite effect, reducing public transport mobility and network efficiency. This decline in the ‘effective size’ of major cities is estimated to cost the UK economy £23.1 billion every year. By reducing the size of the labor market for firms, as well as workers’ access to high-paying, high-productivity jobs and activities in city centers, poor access to public transportation in major cities reduces agglomeration effects and, thus, productivity and economics. performance. For example, Rome and Manchester are the same size, but Rome is 55 percent more productive, partly because a much larger share of its workforce can travel to the city center by public transport.
The nature of the urban form of cities is also likely to shape the transportation options available. Greater densities increase demand for public transportation, making tram or metro systems more viable. Without efforts to change the urban form of major cities, expanding their public transportation systems will not achieve the benefits of European-style transportation. For example, Leeds and Marseille have similar populations, but 87% of people can reach central Marseille in 30 minutes by public transport, compared to 38% in Leeds. If Leeds had a network of a similar size to Marseille’s, only 61 per cent of its population would live within 30 minutes of the city center – and it could not close the gap without making changes to its built form.
Raising the standard of public transport, and enabling major cities to realize their potential, depends on supply-side solutions that expand these transport networks. This makes the £5.7bn allocation of transport infrastructure spending for large city areas, and £1.2bn additional funding to improve bus services in last month’s Budget very welcome.
But to get the most money, investment in transportation infrastructure must be accompanied by more development around stations. This demand-side solution would make it easier to live near and use public transportation by changing the built form of all major cities. Upgrading, as well as the value for money, environmental and social benefits that come with improving public transport, can be achieved through national and local government focusing on the following alongside improving public transport:
Local Development Orders (LDOs) to transform the urban form of major cities from low-rise to medium-rise. Local authorities in England can already use LDOs to plan mid-rise housing near existing and new public transport, determining density and height as well as developer input. The government should make new public transport infrastructure in major cities conditional on increased use of LDOs by local authorities. Planning reforms to make redevelopment near public transport easier and more certain. The current discretionary planning system makes large-scale redevelopment of existing urban areas impossible, and makes public transportation outcomes worse. Reforms, such as “Regeneration Zones” in the Planning White Paper, the “Street Voices” proposal from the Yimby Alliance and Policy Exchange, and the release of land around train stations in the Green Belt, will all provide more homes while achieving optimal use. Existing public transport infrastructure. Mayors should grant concessions to their bus networks. This would help cities control and operate their own bus networks for the benefit of the wider urban economy. The Government should extend the time window and ability of venues to sign up for bus franchising to help complete this transition. Next chapter
