文字稿 🔗
Imogen Cotter: Welcome to the Stolen Ride podcast. I'm your host, Imogen Cotter. Each episode, we dig into cycling, the community around it, and the realities of security and crime with the people who spend their lives inside these worlds. Today, I'm joined by Professor Rachel Aldred, Professor of Transport at the University of Westminster and Director of the Active Travel Academy. Her work focuses on sustainable mobility and active travel, including cycling safety, infrastructure, policy, and the wider question of how we transport systems that are safer, healthier and more inclusive. Thank you so much for joining me today, Rachel. Yeah, so you have been in the world ⁓ travel and sustainable travel for how long now? I think I saw 15 years on my notes.
Rachel: for inviting me. 20, I'd say. Goodness, yes. Well, going on 20.
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, and what first pulled you into that area then?
Rachel: Well, was during, ⁓ really it was the third year of my PhD and in the third year of a PhD one often gets a little bit bored of one's topic. And I was, my topic was local healthcare privatisation, which was also a bit depressing. I was walking around the area where I was doing case studies and would constantly come across transport infrastructure. There was like a big road that sort of severed half of the borough from the other half. There was, there were rail lines, were canals. And it just started to really interest me how there was all this infrastructure and it connected some people and separated some people from their shops, from their homes and so on. And also as somebody who's walking around, I was constantly aware that I was sort of a second class citizen because I had to keep going under underpasses. I had to keep going the long way around basically so that people who were driving could get into the center of the city a bit quicker. And I just started thinking about that more and more and it just became something that I was really keen to look into.
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, that's amazing. And also to actually see the problem and be like, I've got to do something about that is I think so many of us, especially like in cycling, we'll see something in infrastructure that will be totally. I mean, it just doesn't work. Like you say, paths being severed and, you know, not being separated properly, but you actually said, I want to do something about this. So did you, did you finish the PhD and then go on to change tack or how did it work?
Rachel: Yeah, I finished the PhD and I wrote up some articles and so on from the PhD but I also started looking into the area of transport a little bit more and getting really interested. Also, I was cycling around London at the time and cycling around London in sort of like 2007 or so wasn't, know, it was a bit different to what it was, to what it is now and certainly cycling around as a woman as well. You didn't see that many other women cycling, kind of like often smile because it was like not that usual. see other women on bikes. And so I was also interested in that as well and interested in how people talked about cycling, how people talked about walking and so on, and just the assumptions that were made about how people traveled. And, you know, clearly in London at the time, a lot of people did even then like walk at any rate, less so cycle, use public transport and so on. many people didn't drive, but there was often an assumption that people did drive and that was what the environment seemed to be built around, even in places like know, the parts of East London where I'd been walking around where actually most households then didn't own a car and still don't.
Imogen Cotter: That's actually really interesting and such a good point. mean, that even like central London can be set up more for cars than for cyclists. And I wonder like since that time when you noticed all of this disconnect between cycling infrastructure or just like sustainable transport infrastructure, have you seen a big difference? Like has that improved over the last two decades?
Rachel: I mean, there's been some big changes in some places and much less in others. we've seen, know, some places have really transformed and there are some parts of central London, some parts of inner London that just look so, so different to what they did 20 years ago. But then there's also large parts. I if you look at the map of London in terms like levels of cycling, then there are some parts, you know, there are places or, ⁓ you know, are bridges. where there's more people crossing by bike than by of the modes apart from walking, for instance, there's parts of inner London cycling, ⁓ cycle commuting one in seven people commuting by bike and so on. But then if look at parts of outer London, there's virtually no cycling at all. And cycling is still ⁓ quite unequal in of many different demographic variables like gender, like age, disability, ethnicity, and so on. ⁓ So, you know, there's been some big changes and if you like stand on Blackfriars Bridge at rush hour, you'll be like, wow, London is a cycling city. And if you go and stand out somewhere in Brent, you'll get a very, different impression. So you're very different. And also, if we look at the rest of the country as well, of course, because it's not just London, if you look at the rest of England, for instance, then there's very big variation. There's large parts of England where cycling is just it's actually really hard to cycle. It's still really unwelcoming cycling. But then there are examples, for instance, I guess Oxford might be an example where you've seen much more changes happening. There's places like Bristol and Brighton, Cambridge and other places as well. There's been a lot more infrastructure gone in Manchester. So there's definitely examples where there have been big changes, although even in places where there have been big changes, there are still inequalities, there are still parts of those cities or those areas that, you know,
Load full transcript
it's a lot better than other places.
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, okay. I'm actually curious, why do you think there is bit of a disconnect between the people who are creating these infrastructure systems versus the people who are using them? Clearly they're not seeing that maybe central London isn't full of people using cars. Why do you think there's that disconnect?
Rachel: It's interesting and I think often planners and perhaps I guess academics, a lot of people who were meant to be sort of like planning, thinking about the future and so on, often maybe we kind of lag behind what's happening outside because ⁓ think when you look at the story in London, instance, ⁓ for London, I think really started to get very interested in cycling when became clear that something had to give and also that more people were cycling. that, you know, and London streets and London as a city was growing, there was more and more population and London streets, you know, already around about the turn of the millennium were gridlocked. They were, mean, they've always been, you know, when it was horse and cart, they were also and smelly in different ways. you know, ⁓ there if people, if ⁓ people didn't, if car use didn't increase, there was just going to be absolute chaos because you have more and more people living in the city, you'll have more and more cars and so on. And I think, ⁓ you know, planners sort of looked at what was going on. It's like, well, where is the help going to come from? And actually, you know, if we can into the fact that more people are cycling, then maybe ⁓ will help us support a shift away from the car and towards other modes of transport and public transport as well. know, there's been a big, ⁓ London, you know, ⁓ big part of the story is a shift from the car to public transport and particularly around ⁓ use as well. ⁓ I think
Imogen Cotter: Yes.
Rachel: In London, it was really clear that there was a problem that had to be solved. And London is so high profile as well that it became, you know, it created this condition. Also having a mayor, having somebody who was responsible and initially the mayor, initially Ken Livingstone, not responsible for that much really, but was responsible for transport. So having somebody who, ⁓ know, was seen as being this is their, you know, this is theirs to deal with. But I think very often, yeah, people people in policy planning and so on, sort of often do what has been done before that's seen as easiest and safest and you that's ⁓ not having to go out on a limb and do something differently even if the results are not necessarily that I think there is an awful lot of institutional inertia. I think also you know it's worth remembering that local authorities in this country and Many countries have been subject to a lot of austerity. There isn't a lot of money. There isn't a lot of staffing. It's quite hard. That makes it even harder to change course. I think it's that. There's also often a question, a more general question as well about who is doing the planning and certainly perhaps the ⁓ demographics, sort the kind of people who are making the decisions are not necessarily the kind of people who either are cycling or we would like to get cycling. yeah, I think there's different factors going on. ⁓
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, that's a really good point, you know, that sometimes people who are making these decisions aren't actually, you know, having to deal with the repercussions or, you know, the consequence of maybe a cycle path that ends with just like in the middle of a busy street and there's nowhere for a cyclist to go. So I think that's a really good point. And do you still ⁓ obviously there's still some mistakes or some... maybe not the greatest decisions that are made in terms of public transport, but you pin down for me what you think the biggest mistakes that are made within sustainable infrastructure are?
Rachel: think generally it's what we were saying that things get done in the same way, even though in the same way, mean, thinking also about the climate crisis, thinking about a lot of the public health problems that we have thinking, you know, physical air pollution, road injury, noise pollution, all those kinds of things. There are all these reasons why we need to do things differently. But way that we do things is the way that we've always done things. And actually, it's quite hard to ⁓ you know, most of the streets that we have don't look like how we would like them to be or how they should be in line with, you know, the ⁓ most recent guidance, the streets don't look, the footways are not wide enough, there isn't the cycle infrastructure, know, there aren't often the accessibility features that there should be and so on. But actually getting things changed once they're in place is really quite hard. I think there's also... This is not just something that affects UK, of course, there's the fact that the whenever whenever space is reallocated away from motor traffic, you know, whether it's Copenhagen or Manchester or New York or wherever it is, it's hard because is assumption there is this car dominance, there is this historical privileging of cars, of motor vehicles in the street environment. And I think often there's kind of an unwillingness to have difficult conversations, which I entirely understand. And the, you know, the fact that actually, if we're going to, you know, make things safer for children to cross the road to go to school, or for people to cycle to the shops or whatever it is, then it does mean that there is more space needed, there is more protection needed for those activities and space and time in urban ⁓ areas anywhere, in fact, doesn't come from nowhere. And it does. you know, does imply potentially things like reducing car parking, reducing motor traffic speeds, reducing access, you know, three routes for motor traffic and things like that. And obviously that does cause potentially some inconvenience. It does mean that
people will have to do things a bit differently and that is difficult. So I think I think that is, you know, something that, you know, those conversations are quite hard, but also quite important because it's not the question, you know, it's not the case that we don't need to have difficult changes. I mean that was two double negatives. Changes are needed and I think it should be acknowledged that they will be difficult. mean none of us it easy when suddenly something is disrupted. mean yeah disruption is hard.
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, and of course, and if there's that also a bit of a disconnect between drivers and cyclists, it can feel like two people against each other sometimes. Have you found that in studies that the track, the ⁓ cycling or ⁓ like sometimes is a barrier for people getting into cycling? Is that something they'd mentioned?
Rachel: I mean, I think, well, there's two things that in terms of the the evidence, not just from like the studies that I've conducted, but like the wider academic literature, there is evidence you know, we do build better active travel infrastructure, we do get more people doing active travel, but, you know, was a really nice study, I've got the of the authors now, but it was it was a study looking at the ⁓ bike paths were built during the, you know, quite quickly, often during the early years of the code, early months. really of the COVID-19 pandemic in different European countries and that those went in, increased. mean, Paris is a really ⁓ case in point, but there were other places as well where cycle lanes went in. You they were protected. They weren't super, you know, shiny because they were done really quickly, but they did, allocating that space and protecting people did more people cycling. ⁓ There's quite lot of evidence as well around what people say and, you know, in terms of what people would like in order to be able to cycle and yes consistently also people tend to say would like ⁓ protective bike infrastructure, we would like safer bike infrastructure if we're going to cycle and ⁓ research so I was involved in a systematic review of this kind of literature with some colleagues ⁓ we found that you know people in general tend to say they want protective bike tracks to you know to cycle that's that's you know most people tend to say that ⁓ ⁓ was particularly likely in the studies that we reviewed women would say that so there was a gender difference so you know men and women both wanted more protective bike lanes but women's preferences were even stronger so that I think also helps to explain it's not the only factor but it helps to explain the gender difference in cycling.
Imogen Cotter: Why is that? Why women you think would raise that concern sooner than a man?
Rachel: I mean, that's a really interesting question. mean, I think, I mean, first of all, I guess it's worth remembering that in a context like the UK where cycling is, you know, too scary and too dangerous compared to the best international examples in this context, most people, whatever their gender are not exactly keen to cycle. So, you know, the current environment we've got is putting off people of all genders. But I think also, there's factors like For women, some women, not all women, course, women are more likely to be traveling with children than men. They're more likely to have that are more complex and trip chaining. So they're more likely to come contact with a range of different kinds of traffic environment. They're going different destinations. Often we've built ⁓ bike paths we have built bike paths. We've built them into the city center to commuting destinations, whereas women's trips ⁓ are more than men's trips to be other kinds of destinations. ⁓ and so ⁓ cycling environment doesn't necessarily ⁓ well, ⁓ doesn't suit anyone's trips that well but it suits women's trips less well. ⁓ think it's also the case that culturally it's somewhat less acceptable for men to admit to being scared to cycle than for women to admit to being scared to cycle. ⁓ So part of me kind of thinks, well, you know, partly it's just that men are less willing to admit to this. You know, they are maybe scared to cycle, but they're less willing to admit to it. And interestingly, there was some evidence from the Dutch studies that we reviewed. There seemed to be less of a gender difference in terms of those perceptions in the Dutch studies. maybe where cycling is more mainstream, it's seen as so much of a male macho thing to do. But that's kind of, that's like my interpretation.
Imogen Cotter: That's so interesting because, yeah, I do think in the Netherlands, it's such a part of their culture. In the Netherlands, everybody cycles, whatever age you are, and yeah, of course then it's kind of more... I suppose they also maybe aren't dealing with as much fear as we would have. I I lived in London for a few years and I think back on cycling there, I can't actually believe that I did it because to me it is so scary. So, ⁓ really interesting to hear about that gender difference and how we approach it. ⁓ ⁓ there any other barriers aside from like the cycling infrastructure that you have encountered for people getting into cycling, even just commuting? What are the other kind of barriers they'd face?
Rachel: Yeah, I mean, obviously the infrastructure the big one. And the infrastructure is also, I mean, I wouldn't necessarily like separate all those things, all these things. ⁓ hard to separate things this that sharply because the infrastructure and the culture, I think, are quite closely linked. And when the infrastructure is poor, it sort of sends a message that, well, you we don't really expect normal people to cycle because know, this is what we provided for them. And when you look at cycle infrastructure in much of the UK still, sadly, it's like, what is this being made? is this being made for? You know, on the one hand, it's somebody who's meant to be ⁓ happily like wiggling around on a
narrow footway with pedestrians. On the other hand, as soon as there's some kind of issue with as far as the designers are concerned, that's suddenly meant to be in the road with lots of motor traffic. And it's like, there's no consistency. It's kind of, it's not clear who it's for. So it's not ⁓ know, no wonder that people who don't cycle, you know, struggle to, you know, think cycling or to, you know, empathise with cyclists, because that infrastructure is ⁓ implying that not ⁓ the conditions help them to do that. so yeah, I the infrastructure, the culture, the sort of and the culture also feeds into different kinds of infrastructure. as well and different, know, not just route based infrastructure, but also things where you can park your bike, whether it's at home or whether it's at office at work or whatever. So, yeah, there's a range of different ⁓ factors the infrastructure and what's provided there, the culture, the policy, the assumptions, all kind of tied up together, I think.
Imogen Cotter: And when you talk about the cycling parking, know, if you're commuting, obviously, are you talking about ⁓ having places that are safe enough to park bikes or having a place at all? it or is it both? ⁓
Rachel: I mean, I think it depends. So this isn't like something that I've studied in great detail, but it does, I think, depend on the context and depend upon, you know, how long you, you know, are you are you just going to the shop? you about to pop into the shop? Or are you going to be at work all day? Or are you leaving it overnight to your home? Those kind of questions and also the type of bike as well, because this is another thing around assumptions around what bike is as well. There's assumption that a bike is a particular size and shape and yet for you know many people use different kinds of bike or would use different kinds of bike like if you're going to have a cargo bike then it's going to be kind of different dimensions and it's also potentially going to be quite a lot more expensive and if it gets stolen yeah potentially you yeah lost ⁓ something expensive it's something that can potentially substitute for people having had a second-hand car so there's ⁓ there's questions i think depending on depending on the location depending on the type of bike and so on. And you can see, I mean, there's some, there are some interesting examples, like particularly in London, but not only in London, local authorities, ⁓ of reallocating car parking spaces for bike parking hangers. so providing more space that way, and something that is more secure than simply locking your bike up outside overnight outside your home. And there was some good examples that I've seen also of employers providing secure cycle parking inside in ⁓ in the building that people will be working in. But for a lot of people, that's just not available.
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, and also if they're using some e-bikes, they're not allowed to bring them into yeah, I can understand that as being a big barrier. ⁓ have you seen that there's been, like you're saying, that some employers provide it, but like from a... governmental side of things. Have cities started to invest in more secure parking for bikes? You know, it's not just cycle lanes that they're investing in, are they also investing in cycle parking or have you seen that from cities?
Rachel: residential bike parking has been led by local authorities and some some boroughs in London like Hackney and Waltham Forest for instance have done quite a lot in that regard but yeah it's quite patchy what people have access to and I think we're also quite ⁓ unambitious terms of what is on offer so there's the obviously there's the cycle to work scheme ⁓ terms of like subsidising access to bikes and equipment, but that's quite limited in terms of what it covers. It's on offer to some employees and generally employees, you know, who are more privileged or have more secure jobs are more likely to have access to it and also do better because it's a salary sacrifice scheme. ⁓ Whereas seen examples of, ⁓ for a programme in Lahazan that basically was giving ⁓ e-cargo bikes to residents, right? That was so, you La Housanne is a very hilly area and there was really quite strong take up of that offer and that was led by the city saying, yeah, we want people to have access to bikes, it can be really important for them to be able to cycle ⁓ most people, most residents are not going to be able to afford these or not going to afford these on their own. So yeah, I think we could ⁓ about being more ambitious in a range of ways, not just infrastructure.
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, yeah. Wow. That's an amazing scheme. in Switzerland, I feel. But I'm curious, obviously, this is the Stolen Ride podcast and like a big thing for us is theft. So ⁓ have ⁓ also that that ⁓ that of ⁓ safe ⁓ bike feeds into more bike theft, which also then acts as a barrier? ⁓
Rachel: So it's not an area that I have specifically studied, but it does intersect, I feel, interestingly, with some kind of dimensions of inequality as well. If we think about sort of who is more likely to live. So, you know, if you want to store your bike at home, you know, you're more likely to have somewhere to store it safely on your premises. If you've got, a house, you've got a garage, you know, who is more likely to have access to those facilities versus who is more likely. to live in a flat where, you know, the estate that ⁓ in some years back where the local authority would put signs up saying bikes ⁓ to railings will be removed. And yet people, for many people, they were living in overcrowded flats that they couldn't ⁓ the bike in their hallway. would just get in the way of them and their kids trying to get in and out. But then if they lock the bike on railings, then apparently it would be removed and destroyed by the local authority. And you know, I think there are big inequalities in terms of people having access to bike parking. So it's also an
equality's issues that being able to make sure that people can keep a bike safely. yeah, I mean, who has insurance who can afford to pay the co payment on an insurance claim and so on. So yeah, I think there is it's not something that I've specifically looked at in terms of a deterrent effect and measuring that but I do think there's an interesting kind of equality's angle to it.
Imogen Cotter: another area that you've also done on is low traffic neighbourhoods, is that correct? ⁓ I was wondering, I mean, why they become a bit a contentious issue when it comes to the cycling or cycling, commuting, safe infrastructure debate?
Rachel: mean, firstly, I guess it's worth saying that anything sort of interferes with motor traffic flow is often potentially potentially and particularly given that something that we haven't specifically talked about directly, but that is also happening often is a kind of stigmatisation of cycling or bike clash or whatever. So that because as we were talking about, know, cycling still is quite a marginal form of transport in the UK and it's, you know, cyclists tend to be sort of marginalised and potentially looked down on. So when the transport policy and intervention kind of gets associated with cycling, it still can be a bit double edged. But as I was saying, also, yeah, policies that restrict car access, car use, and so on car parking can often be quite contentious, even if they're not associated with active travel interventions. For instance, the, you know, reduction car parking, for instance, tram systems, rapid bus transit, bus lanes can also be controversial if it means, as it often does in a city centre or an urban area, taking space away from cars. So think that's the background that often we do see about a whole range of different interventions that restrict car use or that aim to increase walking, cycling or public transport. I different things also that have come up here is around the fact that low traffic neighbourhoods became quite a political football with the kind of things that were happening in national politics. So that was something that was happening at a particular time. ⁓ were different kinds of active travel interventions going in quite quickly often in 2020, know, range of things, not just low traffic neighbourhoods, but things like footway widening as well. And these were going in at a time, you know, that was very difficult for many people. And they were, you know, seeking often to provide additional space for people in, you know, to give two metres, so that people could have two metres space between people, which often just, you know, There was an interesting study from University College London that pointed out that many of London's footways, most of London's footways, you could not leave two metres gap between you and somebody else. So you couldn't actually comply with the social distancing recommendations unless you were going to walk in the carriageway. So that was the context. so, know, low
traffic neighbours and to a lesser extent, some of these other things became sort of tied up with what was going on. nationally in terms of a range of different things also. So I think there's different things going on but I think there has been particular controversy around LTNs but it's not completely unprecedented and we have seen similar things happen around cycle tracks, around speed limits, around buses and so on in the past as well.
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, and ⁓ low traffic neighbourhood, is there a criteria that it has to reach to be considered an LTN? It's not something I know a lot about, so it's kind of an interesting concept to me.
Rachel: Sure. So, OK, so the interesting thing for me as a researcher when I started looking at low traffic neighbourhoods is the idea is that it's something that's based around a neighbourhood or a small area. So it's not that you're doing something to just a specific road. It's you're aiming to remove or substantially reduce through traffic from a neighbourhood, from a set of streets. I thought that was interesting. And the other thing about them is that they're not just like pedestrianisation schemes in central London or city centers or whatever. They're meant to be. something to improve local areas where people actually live, which is where a lot of local trips happen. People are just sort of out and about near their homes and so on. So, yeah, it's basically trying to get rid of all or most through motor traffic in a set of mostly residential streets. And in terms of, mean, one of the... complicated things about local transport of course is that things get named all kinds of different ways so you know people once a term like low traffic neighbourhoods or whatever it is is seen as a bit or we don't want to be associated with that there'll be different terms come into use and actually pinning down what somebody means specific scheme title or category or whatever it's sometimes a bit difficult but that's what understand by it that it's a neighbourhood it's not just a street and the idea is to have low levels of traffic.
Imogen Cotter: Okay, and have you found that they have been Is that a successful kind of concept that has been rolled out across the entirety of the UK? I'm assuming, is it?
Rachel: I mean, mostly it's been London. Mostly they've happened in London. And partly this is because London has tended to have more resources, has tended to have lower levels of car ownership. So making these kind of policies easier and generally to have local political leadership that's more willing to do these kind of things. So mostly, you know, a lot of them have happened in London. It's kind of slightly difficult to quantify across the whole country because nobody is generally collecting national level figures. So you can look local authority by local authority, but it's quite hard to get a complete picture. But in London, there were over 100 went in in recent years. So that's the good thing about that is that we're
able to like look at some impacts across that many schemes, because you can imagine if you've just got one scheme, it's maybe like three or four streets. It's actually quite hard to measure any kind of change because it's relatively, you know, any kind of change is likely to be quite small. It's hard to pick up. But if you look across, say, 100 schemes. you've got a lot more data, so you're a lot more likely to be able to measure a difference. And we found that, you know, a substantial, we found about a third decline in injuries across these London schemes. So, you know, third reduction in injuries, and that seemed to hold across the most serious injuries or across all injuries, and it seemed to benefit all road users. And it wasn't just displaced to other roads, it was like a real reduction in injuries. So that, to me, is the strongest evidence. because we've got good data on road injuries from police injury data. ⁓ think that they're quite a well evidenced, ⁓ know, safety intervention. ⁓ think the evidence on other outcomes is less strong because often you're not able to look across as many schemes as that. So I think ⁓ some evidence of increased walking ⁓ cycling. There's some evidence of reduced crime. ⁓ some evidence of less driving. There's other... evidence around air and noise pollution that's kind of promising, but I think the strongest evidence around low traffic neighbourhoods is around injury reduction.
Imogen Cotter: That's really incredible actually that it could decrease by a third, which is a huge reduction. is that that's for road traffic collisions between and car or, you know.
Rachel: All collisions. mean, I would qualify that because, it's a substantial relative reduction, but, you obviously a lot of collisions take place on main roads and low traffic neighbourhoods are not suitable for main roads. So would say you have to do stuff on main roads too. You know, there are a lot of injuries happen on the main roads too.
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, but actually it's still such a great argument for a low traffic neighbourhood if you can avoid you know, if you can avoid somebody getting injured, hurt, it's incredible. And you also mentioned about more cycling as a result of them. I wonder, is that all or would a low traffic neighbourhood be more, you'd be seeing more kids cycling to school or is it across all levels?
Rachel: So it's harder to look. So the thing with the looking at impacts of these or any schemes on injuries is that we've got quite comprehensive data on police, least on injuries as recorded by the police. So that gives you a data set to use. We don't have in the same way sort of routine data sets of walking and cycling that we can. So often when you're looking at impacts of low traffic neighbors or any other scheme on walking and cycling, you'll often be doing sort of collecting data specifically. So that limits the amount of schemes that you can look at. The evidence around changes in walking and cycling is weaker because
it's only reliant on a relatively small level of schemes because data hasn't been collected across 100 plus schemes. But that said, we have recently done some research looking at a relatively small number of London schemes and we have found some evidence of an improvement in terms of the proportion of children ⁓ And I would you know, more research needs to be done because this is only research done on a relatively small number of schemes, but that's you know that's hopefully some quite hopeful on that but yeah I think more studies would be good too. ⁓
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, and so that's something that you've studied recently, but where do you envision your study now? Because you're involved in such an, like, I suppose cycling infrastructure and sustainable transport infrastructure is evolving so much. Where do you imagine that your research is going to go over the next like five or even 10 years?
Rachel: Sure. Well, I mean, I can be reasonably sure over the next four years at any rate, because we're a year into a five year research project, which is looking going to be quite interesting, I think, because we're looking at cycling infrastructure, so good quality cycling infrastructure going in in three English regions outside of London. So a lot of the research around whether it's cycling infrastructure or low traffic neighbours or whatever is focused on London, partly because London has done so first. Often there's better data in London. So this study is looking at three regions outside of London. And we're going to be doing some quite large scale research looking at the numbers, looking at if there is a change in cycling new infrastructure goes in. But we're also going to be doing in-depth research, talking to people, ⁓ people from groups that are underrepresented in cycling and finding out about their experiences of infrastructure and finding out what difference can infrastructure make ⁓ what more is needed in order to make cycling more equal. So that's something that I'm going to be quite occupied on over the next few years. And yeah, really one of the things that really interests me is this sort of equality's angle and making sure that, you know, it's not just more cycling, but it's also cycling for everybody who might want to, who might be able to participate in cycling. You know, it's not because the groups of people that are underrepresented in cycling in the UK are people who have fewer other options as well. So even if we just look at gender, which has been relatively well researched, but, ⁓ know, you think about it. You know women often have lower access to cars than men. They also have trips as I sort of alluded to earlier that are often more call it trip chaining so that they're you know potentially going to not just going from home to work but home to the shops, shops school, school to work, know kind of ⁓ trips that that are kind of often quite hard to make by public transport if you're needing to make multiple bus trips for instance.
⁓ So making a cycling environment that really works well for women. ⁓ It's really important because women often have worse access to other forms of transport. There are reasons why they're less able to access cars or public transport than men. ⁓ I think that is really important. And I think, yeah, sort of not just mainstreaming planning for active travel, walking, wheeling, cycling, and so on, but also ensuring that this isn't just seen as being for one demographic of the population, but potentially this could be for many, many people.
Imogen Cotter: Yeah, wow. And would it look like for you to see real progress then within that area, like to see, ⁓ know, more ⁓ that was catered towards women who were doing that trip chaining? What would that look like in an ideal world? I'd love to know. ⁓
Rachel: I mean, you the hand, also, I don't want to like knock building commuter routes, because this is also really important. And it's really important to have those corridors around along roads that are suitable and safe for cycling for everybody, but also to be looking at those trips, you know, to to centers to schools, shops, ⁓ know, just sort of local trips around the place that, ⁓ know, that more, you know, if we're just building for the commute, we are just building for, you know, a particular demographic and the type of ⁓ trips ⁓ I think, like one in seven trips or something like that. So a lot of trips people make are not commuting, you know, older people, children, disproportionately women and so on are less likely or are not commuting. ⁓ So it would be much more, and that's why we need neighbourhood schemes, whether it's like low traffic neighbours or what, know, other kinds of neighbourhood schemes, but the kind of neighbourhood schemes that mean that local streets really are safe and inclusive for everyone, which obviously goes beyond transport planning well. And I suppose, yeah, the view from, you know, what would it, ⁓ ideally, you know, would children as well like our streets to look like, you know, why are children so systematically excluded from planning because you if we ask children they tend to not want everything to be car dominated but they don't tend to like you know get what they would like so yeah it would be it would be very much changing around a lot of our a lot of our priorities and the way that planning is done I think and yeah particularly also thinking about where people ⁓ like to go and not just thinking about ⁓ A to B journey.
Imogen Cotter: ⁓ yeah, I like that vision. ⁓ that it's a bit more calm, less cars. it does happen in the next few years. But obviously you're doing all the research to get us there and to help make the right decisions when it comes to those, like, know, the governmental decisions or local authorities that they'll be able to come to someone like you and maybe one day will be a reality that low traffic neighbourhoods all over London. Thank you so much for for joining me today and for such an interesting conversation and bringing so many different viewpoints in that I think a lot of us wouldn't have considered before. I wish you the best of luck with the rest of your project over the next four years and ⁓ to many low-travelling neighbourhoods. ⁓ Rachel.
Rachel: Thanks, Imogen.