The second meeting of the third expert panel cycle looked in more detail at the topics that had been raised as issues and opportunities relating to transport and infrastructure in London to develop themes that could be developed into proposals for the New London Agenda.

The session was focussed on developing the key themes from the first meeting to form the basis of how they might be put into action to form Strategy and drive Cultural change. A focus might be around Stations, and their role in the future of mobility and community.

Reference was made to challenges that have been obstacles to driving change and improvement which come up time and again, including funding, engagement, short-term planning and equitable access to transport, amenity, and choice. The group also recognised that central London differs significantly from outer London, and there is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution. We reflected on the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), its proposed expansion in August 2023 and the controversy the proposals are creating. There needs to be nuance to road user charging that does not penalise the vulnerable and those for whom other transport modes are not a practical alternative; but clearly, something significant needs to be done for London to achieve its target to be net zero by 2030. A major element of achieving this is based on a 27% reduction in car journeys by km travelled in this period.

It was felt that the communication strategy around ULEZ and other sustainable initiatives could go further in informing people on why, what the additional funding generated from these schemes and policies would be used for, and how the results and alternatives would over time outweigh the initial impact and cost to users.

The group discussed using a more data driven analysis to be able to target making meaningful change; for example, understanding that around 60% of car journeys are under 5km and why they are undertaken would be potentially more impactful than focussing on micro-mobility, which has been controversial and unpopular in European cities such as Paris. The notion of the 15-minute city was raised, moving, and locating amenity nearer to demand centres to reduce or eliminate those journeys.

It was recognised that buses offer the only realistic car alternative for many people, particularly in the outer London Boroughs. The Superloop was cited as an example of looking at how the bus service could be transformed and augmented to offer a real alternative to cars with convenience that the rail infrastructure cannot provide. Buses are the most affordable, accessible, and potentially cost-effective mode of public transport available. Precedents from other countries, with ideas around different pricing models for using public transport although it was balanced with an acknowledgement that such initiatives are often subsidised which creates increased pressure on funding.

Such initiatives require leadership to represent and speak on them. That leadership is required to pull together the varying stakeholders, funding, policy and strategy to implement them. In the case of the Superloop, this is a proposal from the Mayor which is jointly funded by the Mayor, City Hall and Transport for London. This is important as often the end goal is unpalatable, with benefits too far away and beyond political cycles to be appealing. It was agreed that the long-term planning needs to bridge the funding and political boundaries to be deliverable; proposes need to garner cross-party advocacy. Could more of the factors upon which the delivery of these elements dependent upon be devolved?

The potential benefits of this and other initiatives are clear; shifting journeys away from the private car to a cleaner mode with less volume of traffic on the roads, which results in faster travel times, better air quality and carbon reductions. A further benefit of this would be the repurposing of roads, potentially giving space back for active travel modes, enhanced pedestrian environments and activation along our streets that in turn makes them safer and more pleasant and help to grow local communities and economies.

It was recognised that stations could also play a key role. They could be leveraged and designed to provide and facilitate some of those amenities and services that generate small journeys in communities.  Countries such as Denmark develop transport corridors more intensely; mobility hubs could be integrated to provide first/late mile modal interchange; public amenities that people making journeys regularly use could be collocated with stations.

Finally, it was highlighted that there does not appear to have been a clear illustration of the transport and infrastructure vision, and how it is achieved. This would give an impact, clarity, and economy to defining the vision and the road map to achieve it. This would also help to identify realistic and deliverable short-, medium- and long-term goals, and who and what is required to deliver them.