”It’s vital that we develop a reliable, low- carbon transport network, fit for the rest of this century. This Transport Vision explains how we will get there.”
The forward of the new transport vision from Tom Hunt and Ben Miskell sets the tone. This aims to set Sheffield on track for the next 75 years and more.
I will just aim to make a few notes on how this reads for me.
”We know what a world-class transport network looks like.”
This sets alarm bells ringing already.
Yes, there are examples around the world of cities doing good things with their transport. Whether Paris, Ghent, Barcelona or Bogotá. We have much to learn from them. But no city that I know of, and certainly not any of the poster children of sustainable travel (Copenhagen, Amsterdam etc) have begun to get even close to showing where we need to get to. By this I mean that the huge harm of motor traffic is getting clearer each day, with damage to our health, economy and our climate getting more apparent. And the supposedly most successful cities have done little to wind down the harm of motor dominance. More often they have managed to squeeze it out of the most prominent places. Although in the Netherlands they do create excellent cycle networks, effective public transport, and streets for people, car ownership continues to go up and up.
Our last transport strategy for Sheffield in 2019 (which the briefing for this vision describes as “still very relevant and valid”) acknowledged the nature of the issue, saying that responding to the climate crisis is:
“not likely to be a question of just more ambition for cycling, cheap bus fares or tram extensions – rather, we anticipate the Climate Emergency is likely to fundamentally challenge, in short order, the degree to which we [the council] can facilitate [car] travel as we have become accustomed to.”
This scale was pointed to in the Arup climate report, which also included shifting to electric vehicles, and increasing bus use and active travel, but still relied on a 66% reduction in car use share before 2030 to meet the carbon budget. This budget was already wildly out of step with meeting 1.5C (giving roughly double the carbon total), and in the 5 years since when it should have spurred urgent action much of this budget has been squandered. So 66% reduction of car use is no longer what is needed, if it ever was. The vast majority of car use needs to be phased out, within a handful of years. And if we are to build a better new world rather than repeat the patterns that got us into this mess, it needs to be fair, inclusive and liberating. Three words which can never describe a city dominated by traffic.
Has any city in the world has attempted this? I’d love to see it but I don’t think we have yet. Paris could be a contender?
We should take what we can learn from elsewhere but not fool ourselves that there is a template out there for rapidly creating a city largely free of traffic harm or sustainable for the future.
This puts into context claims like
“Our vision for Sheffield’s transport network is bold and ambitious.”
And when we hear that
“It’s the collective vision of the entire Council administration…”
should we question: can anybody see what the Emperor is(n’t) wearing? Where is the alternative, or has all of Sheffield Council embraced Thatcher’s maxim There Is No Alternative?
If we need a profound change in favour of people over motor industry profits, does the kind of progress being celebrated here show that we are at least heading in the right direction and maybe just need to move faster?
Let’s take the first example this document gives:
“We are already working hard to make it easier for you to get around Sheffield. On busy routes such as London Road and Broadfield Road, we’ve made bus journeys more reliable and pedestrian crossings safer.”
I think this is referring to the “London Road and Broadfield Road improvements”.
This £3.36m scheme which is nearing the end of construction is the latest attempt to deal with congestion by expanding road capacity. This has included demolishing buildings, removing a pedestrian crossing of London Road and splitting remaining pedestrian crossings into two separate stages, making pedestrians wait so that motor traffic can be moved more efficiently. (The scheme also added pedestrian and cycle crossings elsewhere on Wolseley Road, which perhaps highlights how unsuitable these small residential streets are for heavy traffic). The original plan was to add a traffic lane over the bridge and put a new bridge beside for footway. But this was scaled back due to cost. As in other schemes, it is explicitly acknowledged that if only there was more money available then even more capacity for traffic would be added.
Yes, buses on London Road get caught in this congestion, but 97% of the vehicles creating the queues – and therefore set to benefit from a few seconds less in journey times are private cars, vans and lorries. And since adding capacity is generally seen to attract more traffic this could be back to at least the same delays in a few years. All the while the extra volume of traffic these capacity expansions have made (my rough estimate from the scheme data is somewhere over a hundred thousand additional vehicle trips a year) will be driving in, out and through communities all over Sheffield, and largely driving past Lowfield Primary, already the most polluted school in Sheffield.
Maybe we don’t need to haggle over how many per cent of traffic reduction is needed by which year – we could start with even accepting the principle that any reduction is to happen at all.
There is a lot of good stuff in this vision document, including talking about priority for people, making streets more accessible and safer, developing an active travel network, improving buses, trams and trains.
But if an aim of improving all these “alternative” transport options is to reduce traffic… doesn’t that mean we should expect traffic to… reduce?
So we could spend a lot of attention on the detail of the walking, cycling and public transport aims in this vision. Or we could shortcut and ask whether those putting this vision forward believe that it will do that key thing that is aimed for – reducing traffic? Do they believe the hype? Or when this same vision also enthusiastically plans for increasing traffic, doesn’t that show it is at best self-defeating? (I’m really trying to stay away from accusing anyone of cynicism. I know there are decent people involved in this work. The alcoholic – who we’ll come to soon – probably really does want to get sober.)
Planned increases include an Innovation Corridor along the M1, expanding M1 junctions, adding 20% traffic capacity to Shalesmoor Gateway, expanding the inner ring road, expanding park and ride (ie encouraging more, longer car trips) and servicing a reopened Doncaster Airport (one for the climate lols).
It all feels a bit like an alcoholic who says “I know I’m in trouble, how I’m hurting myself and everyone I love and I really am going to get sober. It’s going to be so different, you’ll see. And so I’m installing a bar in every room of my house.”
Is this vision really shared by the whole council, and councillors of all political parties?
One way to be more confident that we have turned a corner would be to do what Labour in Wales have done and cancel existing road expansion projects, and apply a new ongoing policy of no expansion to try to fix capacity.
I believe that is a real watershed. If we are to begin believing in a real change in the direction of a less harmful, sustainable Sheffield… isn’t this the time to stop adding to the problem?
The task is clear, the challenge is big, but if there is to be any hope, any vision or change worth having, it seems that it will come from us, the people.
Dream your dreams. Share them. Build them together.
Let’s get to it.