Drivers could find themselves pushed further down the priority list under Labour’s new transport planning rules, with councils told to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport when drawing up plans for local roads.
New statutory guidance from the Department for Transport tells local authorities in England outside London to move away from the traditional “predict and provide” approach, under which planners forecast future transport demand and consider the capacity needed to accommodate it.
Instead, councils are expected to adopt what the Government describes as a “vision-led” approach, with authorities required to consider how they are “prioritising and maximising sustainable transport options”.
The guidance has prompted accusations from Conservative politicians and motoring campaigners that Labour is making life more difficult for drivers in pursuit of its environmental objectives.
According to The Telegraph, councils have been instructed to establish hierarchies for different road users, with private motor traffic coming after pedestrians, cyclists and public transport on roads classified as streets.
The Government’s own guidance confirms that, for streets, councils should broadly follow the hierarchy contained in the Manual for Streets, considering the needs of people walking and wheeling first, followed by cyclists, public transport and then private motor traffic.
However, the guidance also contains an important qualification, stating that this does not mean those groups must be given priority “at all times and on all streets”. It says busier, higher-speed roads, including interurban routes and parts of the major road network, are more likely to prioritise the movement of motor traffic.
Funding linked to Government priorities
The new framework potentially gives Whitehall significant influence over how councils draw up their transport policies.
The Department for Transport says that where its guidance uses the word “must”, the requirement may be connected to a statutory duty, Government transport funding or a key priority contained within its wider transport strategy.
Local transport plans are also expected to support national priorities, including the Government’s objective of delivering “green and healthy transport”, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging walking, wheeling and cycling.
The Telegraph reported that councils are also instructed to report the carbon emissions associated with local transport projects, with central Government funding linked to the requirements.
Critics argue this risks leaving councils with less freedom to respond to what residents actually want, particularly in rural and semi-rural communities where cars can be essential because public transport alternatives are limited.
Shadow transport secretary Richard Holden accused Labour of conducting a “relentless war on motorists”, arguing that councils should be able to listen to local residents rather than have policies effectively dictated from Westminster.
He said communities should be free to choose more cycle lanes or pedestrianisation if that is what residents want, but described the combination of Government guidance and funding conditions as “a sledgehammer to democracy”.
Concerns for drivers outside major cities
The potential impact outside large cities is likely to prove particularly contentious.
A transport industry source told The Telegraph that the approach risked imposing what they described as a “London-centric” model on places where people have far fewer realistic alternatives to travelling by car.
The source argued that restricting road capacity would not necessarily persuade people to switch to buses, but could instead leave motorists sitting in congestion for longer.
Paul Naylor, spokesman for the Alliance of British Drivers, also raised concerns, saying motorists were facing an increasing number of obstacles when making ordinary journeys.
Jack Cousens, head of roads policy at the AA, said local transport plans should improve safety and make road networks more efficient, while warning against measures that make driving still more expensive on top of fuel, parking, congestion charges, tolls and fines.
For millions of people, particularly those living outside well-connected urban centres, a car is not a luxury or an optional lifestyle choice. It is how they get to work, take their children to school, attend medical appointments, care for relatives and go about their daily lives.
Labour’s transport policy will therefore face scrutiny over whether its drive towards “sustainable transport” reflects the practical realities facing those communities, or places another layer of restrictions and bureaucracy between motorists and the journeys they need to make.
Government rejects criticism
The Department for Transport rejected Conservative criticism of the policy as “overdramatic”.
A spokesman pointed to what the Government describes as a record £24 billion investment in roads and pothole repairs, as well as projects including the Lower Thames Crossing and its new Road Safety Strategy.
The department also said councils remained best placed to determine local road rules and that those rules should work for local residents.
The statutory guidance itself says there is no “one size fits all” model for local transport and acknowledges that different areas have different needs. It nevertheless requires councils to take account of Government policies and national priorities when preparing their local transport plans.
That tension, between local decision-making and Whitehall’s national transport objectives, is now likely to become another battleground in the argument over Labour’s net zero agenda and the future of motoring in Britain.
