Sustainable Transport Strategy

For the Norwich Area

Introduction

Norwich Green Party's Sustainable Transport Strategy for the Norwich area aims to develop a transport strategy which will, if implemented, reduce pollution and improve access in the City and make every journey a pleasant and enjoyable one; and which will enable people not to need to travel so much, in the first place. Our strategy is sustainable, in that it does not demand continual expansion of transport infrastructure (which would be unfinanceable), it does not rely on privatised companies to implement it (which would be unreliable), and – most crucially of all - it takes into account (and plays its part in reducing) the impact of climate change. Combating climate change requires a major reduction in the use of fossil fuels. This will soon be enforced on us in Norfolk, whether we like or not. Our strategy is therefore visionary, in that it looks further ahead than the next newspaper headline or the next elections, and plans long-term on the basis of lower fossil fuel use and (therefore) lower carbon emissions.

Under our scheme, people will be encouraged to use the most appropriate form of transport for their needs for a particular journey, where practicable taking the healthier options of walking or cycling. Where the use of vehicles is unavoidable, Councils will take a lead in using and promoting the use of genuinely clean and renewable fuels for vehicles. (For instance, used-vegetable-oil-fuelled cars, and electric cars powered by renewable energy). We will incentivise the use of such vehicles, relative to fossil-fuelled vehicles, through such measures as special car-parking places for them.

Our proposals imagine a future in which our roads perform their function better, thus enabling those whose (motorised) journeys are really necessary (e.g. those needing to transport large items, some of the old, infirm and disabled, some goods vehicles, and (crucially) emergency vehicles) to travel faster and more freely.

Summary Of Our 3 Key Proposals

Major investment in pedestrian crossings and other pedestrian safety schemes, across the city.
Rapid investment in making the Norwich road network cycle-friendly, including building the 'Norwich cycle network'.
Re-regulation of the buses, in Norwich and Norfolk.

1) Major investment in pedestrian crossings and other pedestrian safety schemes, across the city.

[Prefatory note: The underlying principle here is that pedestrians should be safe, and wherever possible should have the right of way, in urban areas. Thus our preference in general is for zebra crossings; for innovative 'shared space' measures (see www.shared-space.org); or for informal crossings, integrated with the road layout/design (as in 'Home Zones'). We do not believe in herding pedestrians around via railings etc., except where absolutely necessary. We want instead wherever possible to give pedestrians preference.]

Every month or two, Norwich City Councillors come to Committees or to full Council bearing petitions from residents asking for pedestrian crossings, or traffic-calming schemes. Almost every time, they are turned down, with the response that there is no money available in the coffers for more than a few such schemes per year, across the whole city. The Green Party would make the money available. We would make the building of such schemes a number one priority for the City’s capital budget, each year. In 2005, for instance, several million pounds from the capital budget were spent on the Theatre Royal. The Greens wanted to put a substantial fraction of that money into building desperately-needed pedestrian crossings. Regrettably, the other Parties failed to support our proposal, thus making it impossible for these traffic-calming schemes to be put in place.

We would draw on the capital budget to rapidly roll out the programme of constructing pedestrian crossings where they are needed, all over the city. This would encourage a modal shift towards travel on foot; many pedestrians are at present discouraged (and often resort to the car instead, thus increasing levels of congestion for all), because of the lack of safety for travellers by foot, on/across many of Norwich's roads. We would also accelerate pedestrianisation of much of the city centre, building on the great success of ground-breaking pedestrianisation schemes in the past in Norwich, such as at Gentlemen's Walk. The great majority of Norwich's businesses support such enhanced pedestrianisation of the city centre area, and are willing to pay for it. This would further improve pedestrian safety in the city too, of course.

We would seek to have ‘'personalised travel planning' and 'Smarter Choices' schemes introduced in Norwich. These schemes have proven extremely successful in other localities, at informing people as to what transport options they have available, including pedestrian route options. They should be backed by the Council for experimental and then large-scale introduction into the Norwich area, beginning probably with the University and schools and colleges.

We would also prioritise turning the 'school run' into the 'school walk'.... We would prioritise 'Safe routes to school' in Norwich, encouraging children (and parents) to walk rather than to take the car to and from school. Encouraging walking, the cheapest and lowest-impact form of transport of all, and healthy to boot, would be a spine that ran through all of our transport policy.

2) Rapid investment in making the Norwich road network cycle-friendly

A complete plan for a fairly substantial 'skeleton' cycle network for Norwich already exists (graphics available on request). All that is needed is for it to be built. The rolling out of the (as yet unbuilt) portion of the network would be quite inexpensive, given that cycle lanes and routes are small compared to roads, and that many of them in effect already exist on the ground, and just need rendering 'official'. Special government grants are available for such schemes – Norwich/Norfolk has not even attempted to bid for these grants in recent years, in spite of being informed about them by the Green Party and urged to bid for them.

Together with this would run our implementation of:

The standardisation of access rights for two-way cycling on one-way streets for cyclists as the norm, except where specifically excluded by signage.
The creation of Park-and-Cycle facilities at Park-and-Ride sites.
The overdue opening of a Cycle Centre in Norwich City centre.

These measures would make Norwich as fine a city for cycling in East Anglia (i.e. Norwich would compete with Cambridge for the title of 'cycling capital' of East Anglia).

Cycle training should be made freely available to city residents, which would help to reduce significantly the level of cyclists’ infractions of the Highway Code.

Cycling is extremely good for your health – the research evidence suggests that the risk of having an accident while cycling is at most only one tenth, and perhaps as little as one twentieth, of the 'risk' of experiencing significantly increased longevity and reduced disease, due to being fitter. Effectively encouraging people to shift to riding bikes in the Norwich area, as these measures would do, would make cyclists safer still; many studies show that the single best way of making cyclists safer is to increase the number of other cyclists on the roads. Safety in numbers! And again, increasing the number of journeys made by bike benefits all other road-users; because fewer cars on the road removes what is of course the main cause of congestion for those needing to use cars: namely, other cars! Cycling is accessible to many more people than either buses or cars because it costs less to purchase, maintain and run a bicycle than does any other form of vehicular transport.

In sum, while other Parties pay lip-service to the manifold benefits of cycling for an urban area such as Norwich, the Green Party is actually serious about making the whole of Norwich more cycle-friendly, in part through investing heavily in the Norwich Cycle Network. A more cycle-friendly city is a better city for all.

3) Re-regulation of the buses, in Norwich/Norfolk

As recently agreed in a motion overwhelmingly passed at Norwich City Council, the Norwich area should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of a Quality Bus Contract (QBC). After the granting of consent by the County Council, a QBC could be implemented for the Norwich area within as little as six months, as a result of recent changes in government policy. A QBC would mean an end to the poor service currently provided by private bus companies for Norwich. Instead, bus service levels could be enhanced to the kind of level already enjoyed in greater London, whose buses are already regulated. The QBC would include measures to enforce tighter controls on emissions, driving standards, and maintenance standards. A QBC, backed up by a suitable Council subsidy (and such subsidies are really investments in the city itself, and in its people) for some bus routes, and improved bus priority measures, would revolutionise the bus system in the Norwich area. Many more riders would be attracted onto buses by the more extensive and reliable service, lower travel times and cheaper fares. All drivers/transport-users, including drivers of private cars, would benefit, from the lower congestion-levels on Norwich's roads that would result. Implementation of these measures would be part-funded by means of an application to the government's 'Transport Innovation Fund' (TIF) to gain major government funding for an experimental 'demand-management' scheme for Norwich, perhaps one similar to that that has proved so successful in London, as pioneered by London Green Party and the Mayor, Ken Livingston (the 'congestion charge'), or alternatively the 'workplace-parking-charging-scheme' system, currently being looked into for implementation in Nottingham. Norfolk County Council has recently unsuccessfully applied to the TIF for money with which to build the Northern Distributor Road. There is nothing innovative about building such a road; so, naturally, the funding bid was turned down. However, it would be easy to attract funding from the government for an experimental congestion charging or workplace-parking-charging scheme in a small city such as Norwich. We believe that, if the bus system were drastically improved first, before any charging of motorists for access or parking began, then the scheme would be highly-successful and highly-popular, as London's scheme has proven, after strong initial doubts from many Londoners and from some experts. (Furthermore, the scheme that would be experimented with in Norwich, following government guidance, would be far more 'intelligent' and less one-size-fits-all than the London scheme. It would of course over time raise money, for ploughing into the three measures prioritised in our proposals, here.)

In sum: those taking the bus rather than using private motor vehicles are playing their part in tackling climate change and urban congestion. We praise and thank them for it; and we resolve and declare that Norwich Green Party is 100% determined to improve the (at present pitifully-inadequate) state of the Norwich area public transport system.

Funding

As explained above, much of the funding for the 3 proposals listed above could come from existing sources combined with government grants that our Councils are at present effectively shunning, through their insistence on seeking money almost exclusively for road-building, in Norfolk. However, there would still be a significant shortfall of funds, given our desire to implement the three proposals above within a reasonably short period of time. The income from introducing a demand-management scheme, as indicated in (3), above, would enable our proposals to be financially sustainable. We think that the attractiveness of a Workplace Parking Charging (WPC) scheme for Norwich in particular is well worth investigating. One particular advantage of such a scheme is that, through disincentivising parking at work, it would simultaneously prompt a modal shift to walking (1), cycling (2) and buses (3), and would provide money for the implementation of the STS, without requiring the expensive infrastructure that congestion-charging demands.

But there would still be a short-term shortfall of money, to pay for the STS, even if a demand-management scheme such as WPC were introduced.

The shortfall would be made up for by seeking developer contributions (e.g. for (3), above, and for city centre pedestrianisation (see (1), above)), and by using part of that substantial portion of Council Tax which would otherwise be wasted on the unsustainable project which has gripped Norfolk County Council for the past few years, to the exclusion of proper support for buses, bikes or pedestrians – namely, the building of the (three-quarters, 'road-to-nowhere') Northern Distributor Road. Cancelling the NDR would release tens of millions of pounds which the County is intending to use for the purpose of building a road. Those millions, instead of building a road which, if it were ever built, would not actually reduce congestion, but would merely serve the huge housing and commercial developments which Norfolk County Council is now using as the main justification for the regional and government funds which it is seeking in order to subsidise this very-expensive road scheme, could be put to socially-useful and sustainable purposes, instead. In other words, to backing a sustainable transport strategy.

It is worth noting that the proposals above, with the exception of certain elements of proposals (2) and (3), do not require the construction of costly infrastructure. Road-building, like rail-building, is costly. By contrast, facilitating transport by means of bus, bike and foot is cheap. Millions of pounds on (1), (2) and (3) would go far further than the same millions spent on a few miles of road infrastructure. Our sustainable transport strategy would thus reap huge benefits for a given investment; while the transport strategy that the other three Parties are pursuing would not.

In Particular:

The Norwich LibDems have called for progress in building the Norwich Cycle Network, and we praise them for that call. However, they have not stated how they would find the money to make this investment possible. Whereas we have explained clearly here what we would cut (principally, pointless new road-building projects) in order to fund the large-scale investment that the cycle network so desperately needs.
Norwich Labour Party have recently called for a feasibility study on a tram network for the Norwich area. Again, we praise them for that; and again, we point out humbly that they have not indicated any possibly source of funding for such a network; whereas our proposals in this document are clearly fundable. We would of course be delighted if money could be found to build a tram network in the Norwich area; failing that, then we intend to work to implement our financially-practicable proposals to massively improve bus, bike and pedestrian transport options in the Norwich area.
Finally, both Labour and LibDems repeatedly call for new pedestrian crossings, in locations across Norwich. As pointed out earlier in this document (section (1)), only the Green Party wills the means to actually create a better environment for pedestrians in Norwich, by means of devoting a large chunk of the City Council's capital budget towards this end.

Further Details Of Our Proposals

Walking

More areas in the city centre to be pedestrianised (see (1), above) on a case by case basis as appropriate eg. bus/taxi/cycle only routes as in Castle Meadow, pedestrians only as in Gentleman's Walk, slow through route for cars or indeed pedestrianisation (if supported by local residents and businesses) in St Benedict's.
Pelican/toucan crossings adjusted so they react instantly/rapidly, when actioned.
Council to promote walking to school in parent-led groups, rather than people having to drive there. Vigilance to be exercised toward 4x4s and other vehicles that have poor safety-records with regard to pedestrians.

Cycling

The road network to be systematically made more cycle-friendly, as indicated above (2).
Maintenance of existing tracks e.g. Bluebell Lane and Earlham Green Lane to be improved.
The City Council to promote cycling by e.g. arranging public auctions of cheap bikes, and (where possible by law) reducing council tax/rent on cycle hire, maintenance and sales shops.
Health benefits of regular cycling to be emphasised by all relevant authorities.
Increased provision of secure cycle-parking, working with for example Norwich-based company Sekura-Byk.
Lobbying of the police and instruction of the wardens to prioritise higher cyclist safety (e.g. on isolated sections of cycle tracks), and prevention and detection of bike-theft.

[On these last two points, see Norwich Green Party's Community Safety and Preventing Crime Strategy]

Buses

Public spending for bus routes in and around Norwich to be increased – in particular, increased Council investment-subsidies for less-well-used routes, within the overall context of a QBC (see (3), above).
Very good connections between the rail station and the new bus station to be put in place.
Minibuses to be used on routes where full-length buses are inappropriate (e.g. on Little Bethel Street). Buses to switch asap from diesel to LPG or electric, to reduce pollution (and CO2 emissions).
Improved standard of maintenance and operation of existing PSV fleet.
Better advertising and promotion of bus services better so that people use them more, and easier.
Councils to work toward bus services being democratically accountable (as in the QBC system) and integrated, with other transport services.

Trams

A bid to be put in for government/European funding for a full-scale feasibility study based on existing studies in the Norwich area into tram/light rail systems.
Previous such feasibility studies have suggested that a tram or light rail system could usefully be implemented within 5/7 years from existing transport interchanges to key destinations (e.g. The University and the Hospital), and throughout the Norwich metropolitan area within 10/12 years. In the late 1990s, Norfolk Green Party put forward a visionary such scheme for public consideration, the 'Green Dream' scheme, of a Norfolk Metro [graphic available on request]. If national or international funding can be found to back such a project, then we would stand firmly behind those proposals, subject to a few modifications to bring them up to date. They would make Norwich a national leader in clean-tram technology (such trams could be powered by wind-turbines). However, most light rail and trolley-bus systems that have been tried and tested remain expensive to put in, infrastructurally-speaking. Thus this would only form part of our Sustainable Transport Strategy proper, in the event that we had reason to believe that such a bid for extensive funding was likely to prove successful. At the present time, we think this very uncertain. But it remains a desirable goal.

Trains

Existing rail lines to be supported and any "bustitution" schemes strongly opposed. Rail freight facilities to be expanded on the Norwich-Yarmouth route, in preparation for the opening of the Outer Harbour at Yarmouth.
An East-West rail route to Bristol (via Cambridge and Oxford) to be supported and campaigned for.
The building of new 'halt' stations to be supported where possible and appropriate (notably, at Dussindale).
The use of trains to be encouraged by supporting 'saver' type fares – the government to be lobbied, on this matter. Renationalisation of the railways the overall goal at a national level, which will facilitate the implementation of this and other measures.

Water transport

County Council to investigate more goods/freight transportation by water in the Norwich area, and enhanced use of water buses/taxis.

Taxis

The important role that taxis play in providing public transport to be recognised by the inclusion of taxis in all new bus-lanes.
Councils to investigate integration of journeys and pricing policies between trains/buses and taxis, as is practised in other European countries.

Cars

People to be discouraged from bringing their cars into the city centre by using such measures as perhaps congestion charging (see summary above; see also below), minimising growth of car parking spaces, and workplace parking charges (to be introduced within 5 years, unless congestion charging is successfully introduced in the meantime – workplace parking charging is an alternative to congestion charging.). Vehicles inappropriate for use in a high-density urban environment to be suitably discouraged from that environment: e.g. 4x4s / SUVs to be excluded from within the inner ring road, except for access and use by disabled persons, etc.
County Council to support car-share and car-pool schemes financially as one component of their overall green travel plans. City Council to promote the use of car-clubs pro-actively in its Planning policies, and by introducing tougher regulations for parking spaces, particularly near the city centre.
Councils to press central government for taxes to be levied principally for car use not ownership, and to press for road-tax to be lowered, over time. Also fuel tax eventually to be lowered, with the introduction of carbon rationing as the number one tool with which to tackle global warning (However, road tax on particularly-polluting / poor fuel-performance vehicles only to be increased substantially as a short-term disincentivising measure.).
Priorities for disabled users and vehicles producing low pollution (electric cars etc) to be provided.
Schemes for smoothing and facilitating traffic flow in the city to be introduced e.g. flashing yellows and reds at night, more right-turn filters.
Extend 20mph speed limits across city to all residential roads except for a few specially designated major routes.
One-way systems tend to increase traffic speed and so should in general be used only sparingly, but 'informal one-way' mechanisms and similar devices for local solutions could be encouraged.
Permit parking to be supported as a means of discouraging vehicular commuting, also the gradual extension of schemes to more logical boundaries such as Christchurch Road, the cemetery.
Traffic calming to be encouraged and enhanced through social controls and education. The benefits of parked cars on-street for purposes of traffic-claiming to be borne carefully in mind in urban planning in Norwich.
Road layouts to be progressively re-designed according to 'shared space' principles.
Meanwhile humps to be supported as a useful transitional form of control. The design of humps and other traffic calming measures needs close monitoring, for safety reasons, to avoid damage to vehicles, and for the welfare of cyclists. Residents to be encouraged to report problem users and local traffic problems to the authorities.
Home zones to be established in new developments and introduced into existing built-up areas where appropriate.
The advanced driving test to be promoted.
To sum up: Norwich Green Party is not 'anti-car'. Cars can be used frivolously/destructively; or they can be part of enriching people's lives, opening up new opportunities, and so on. What we want to do is to provide solutions that avoid the need for unnecessary car journeys.

Road building

Dualling of the A47 to be opposed on grounds of sustainability. The Halvergate Marshes are a unique national habitat, in a National Park (the Broads National Park); this habitat cannot be sacrificed to a short-term road-transport 'fix'. Targeted small-scale safety-measures, costing a mere fraction of what dualling costs, to be rapidly put in place on all sections of road that are subject to bad safety records. (The funds are not available to dual all the roads in Norfolk that there are calls to dual. But those same funds would cover all the small-scale safety-measures that would be required, for the same safety-benefit. Those who advocate dualling over such measures, are actually advocating delay in making our roads safe.)
Building of a Northern Distributor Road (NDR) to be strongly opposed as it would not be a long term solution to Norwich's traffic problems, would mean the loss of countryside to the north of Norwich, would encourage rampant development, thus destroying forever the character of the villages surrounding Norwich, and would be very costly.
Money saved from not building the NDR to be invested in the other initiatives proposed in this document, as outlined above.

Air travel

Short haul flights are a very inefficient method of transport, will undermine the CRed campaign, and lead to severe noise pollution in the airport area. Therefore:

No further expansion of the airport.
Fair taxation of aviation fuel (would need international agreement, possibly increase airport taxes in the short term); all local politicians should lobby London and Brussels for this.

Reducing the need to travel

This is critically important.

At present, many motorists have no alternative but to use their cars a lot. We want to alter those conditions, such that people will not need to travel so much. Car drivers are really victims of transport and planning policies which force them to drive further and further in order to get the things they need. We will always favour planning policies that reduce the need to travel; for example, by supporting high-quality local public services, such as post offices and health services. We will promote working from home, and minimise the need for travel by promoting the use of electronic media such as video-conferencing (now becoming available at extremely-cheap rates via the internet).

Furthermore, we will endeavour to improve the quality of life in the Norwich area such that people don’t feel such a need to travel away from it, and feel keener to holiday in Norfolk rather than to go abroad and so spend all their money overseas, rather than it circulating around in our local economy.

Conclusion

To summarize: our 3 key proposals, once again, are:

Major investment in pedestrian crossings and other pedestrian safety schemes, across the city.
Rapid investment in making the Norwich road network cycle-friendly.
Re-regulation of the buses, in Norfolk.

These proposals, and the totality of the detailed proposals contained in this document, are forward-looking, and could lead to more efficient roads, such that those genuinely needing to reach their destinations by car or truck can do so more easily. We believe that, taken as a package, and delivered over time, these proposals could vastly improve the lives of the vast majority of people in the greater Norwich area.

Download as a PDF (includes reference notes)