David Taylor catches up with SLR’s global director of transport Mike Axon to talk through his time as chair of the NLA’s transport and infrastructure panel – and what we might see in 100 years’ time
 

Hello Mike, how are you? 

 

Very well!

 

Good! I'm phoning to chat through your stint on the NLA’s transport and infrastructure expert panel as chair,and wondered if you could briefly summarize the year that you spent on that and the kinds of subjects which came most to the fore. What would you say was the big one that kept coming back?

 

Two things: evidence and the future. So, in the previous year, we spent quite a lot of time talking about what should happen in terms of masterplanning design facilities in order to improve the lot of people traveling around London. That's all very well and good, but what we wanted to do this year was two things. One was, where we could, find an evidential base for demonstrating that some of these masterplanning and design features actually had an effect, and what the degree of that effect was. And secondly, we wanted to look well into the future, to places that we could not necessarily predict with confidence and understand how we should be thinking in order to best phrase those future questions. So: there's two things!

 

So, on the first part, where did you look, and where did you find? And then secondly, what kinds of futures do you glimpse? 

 

Well, on the first part, actually, we didn't do too well. This is, I think, a problem with the industry. We talk a lot of good stuff about design, but we’re very poor at actually quantifying the actual effect – and I'm not talking about the effect in terms of journey times – I'm talking about the effect on liveability. And where we talk about reallocation of road space, where we talk about creating public realm for interaction between communities; great stuff, all brilliant stuff, and it transcends a lot of the expert groups in any event. But I just wanted to know what practical, measurable effect can one get from that? For instance, do we get better mental health because people are interacting more? Do we get more containment within local communities within London because facilities exist locally? Are people happier? Are they more miserable? The evidence doesn't seem to exist.

 

Does it exist in other countries? Do other countries do this kind of thing better? I'm thinking perhaps of Scandinavia?

 

Well, you might have thought so. And we often say, look, it's done better on the continent. But when you start looking, which is what we did, again, we couldn't find good examples as to, firstly, where some of the design measures that we've been talking about were in widespread use, and secondly, actual evidence of effects. So sometimes we think of ourselves as the poor relations to the rest of Europe, but actually we're not. Some of our thinking is actually at the leading edge of thinking in Europe, and we should be proud of that. We can't necessarily look to Europe and say, because they've done it there and it has this effect, we can do it here and it has that effect. 

 

And by we there, you mean the UK rather than London, do you?

 

I mean the UK. The one difference that we did identify was in comparison with China. We certainly heard some evidence that there are places in China which are now moving forward at great pace in terms of transport and liveability technology, which is probably something we may never get to because of our historic urban environments and to some extent, the inability for us to make really, really big political decisions, almost at the drop of a hat. We don't know a great deal about China, but certainly one of our panel members had visited and explained to us what happened there. Very impressive, but perhaps not something that we can emulate here in the UK or London. 

 

It's interesting, isn't it, because if you compare it to things like the aerospace industry, which learns every time from Black Box footage after incidents, it learns and improves. And yet the built environment, which has a very large impact on health, for example, worldwide, doesn't seem to compile that evidence base as much. 

 

Isn't that interesting? And I think that that's the problem. I think that for expert panels going forward, this could be one of the elements that they focus on. Wouldn't it be great if we actually had some evidence as to what would happen if you designed in the way in which we say you should design, or what has happened because of the way we have designed? Interesting. You're right. We don't have cause and effect in the same way as you do with the aerospace industry.

 

So, who would be the body that would need to do that research, if it's not central government or local government? 

 

Well, it could be the NLA, for instance, in London... 

 

Fair enough! Okay, so on the second part of your point, and in terms of the glimpses into the future, I tend to immediately conjure up a picture of drones delivering stuff more; airborne traffic, etc. Is that the sort of picture you looked at? 

 

Well, yes. And in fact, when you mention drones, it's a very pertinent example, because the technology now exists. We talked about the benefits and disbenefits of the technological advances, including drones, and including autonomous cars, for instance. When you look at drones, we refer to a new project called the MORE project. That project looked at the variable use of road space. And when we say road space, we mean actually sub-road space and air space above road space as well.  And so, when we're talking about drones, we might actually be talking about how you regulate flight paths, for instance, for drones. Where do they go? In London, can they fly willy nilly across London? Probably not.  Do we have to create corridors for that movement? We talked about the way in which organizations such as Amazon are now putting a lot of effort and research into the way in which they can deliver using drones, or instance. That's drone deliveries, and we know that technology exists. The technology also exists for people movement by drone, and we discussed the fact that that that's not mass movement, that's probably VIP movement. But nonetheless, the fact that organizations are now buying up roof space, for instance, and other space for drones, both freight and people drones to land, gives you an indication of the direction of travel, in this case…

 

Quite literally! (laughs) I mean, they are just essentially small helicopters, aren't they, in that sense?

 

Yes, it's very simple. Electrical, vertical takeoff and landing vehicles. Yes, it's a more accessible helicopter.

 

But it strikes me this is very unregulated territory at this precise point. I mean, if you look at prisons right now, they're having problems with drone deliveries of all sorts into prisons, aren't they, and it all seems to happen haphazardly and without any regulation.

 

It’s unregulated at the moment, but there's no doubt that, firstly, regulation is needed in order for this to work effectively, but secondly, in order for it not become a nuisance and for it to have the opposite effect. So, for instance, the noise of drones is something that one would need to think about; the interaction of drone landing sites is something that one would need to think about. And it's not just drones. We know that in China, in some locations, the use of autonomous cars is quite normal nowadays. We haven't quite got that far in the UK, but we're heading in that direction. Once you start looking at the use of, for instance, autonomous cars, and of course, actually, when you think about it, Uber is an autonomous car with a driver. But then you're looking at the step change in the way in which you use road space and curb space. So, are you now talking about many more people buying rides, as opposed to either using their own cars or using public transport? And if that is the case, how would you deal with drop off and pick up? Do you do what they do in Brisbane, for instance, and have dedicated drop off and pick up areas on the curb? Or simply, do you do what we do in London and enable people to drop off and pick up wherever they like? And if that's the case, how does that affect the way in which people use our streets, and people use our public realm? 

 

So, if you were to personally project forward 100 years, what would the chief difference be on our streets, do you think, in this whole area?

 

Well what I'd like to see in 100 years is our streets being used more for people interaction, and I suspect that in 100 years’ time, what we'll be looking at is a lot more localization, interestingly; going back to the old days of greater localization and higher density living, but localization in that higher density living, where we use much of our street space for interaction within the community. In addition to that, and this is very difficult to forecast, but in 100 years’ time, we'd be looking at more strategic movement over greater distances, perhaps. And so, we might be looking at strategic corridors. There's no reason why those strategic corridors should be confined, though, to surface travel. It would be interesting to know whether, in fact, we're using three-dimensional travel. And three-dimensional in both underground and airspace travel. Hyperloop, of course, is an Elon Musk idea that so far has failed to gain a great deal of traction, but is effectively vacuum tunnels moving people at high speeds, long distances. It's still being developed in different ways for both freight and people movement; air travel, as we've just discussed. And actually, when we talk about surface travel, when we're really talking about autonomous movement in 100 years, we're probably talking about much, much higher capacity use of the available space for surface travel, because the technology enables us to do that.

 

Okay, it's time for my slightly leading question! Are we still too dependent on the car in this in this country?

 

We like to plan as though we are. In practice, we're not necessarily as dependent upon the car as we used to be. But even in current planning policy, we like to plan for a dependency on the private car. The reason we're not as dependent upon the private car as we were – and we've now got some statistics to show that, for instance, in London in particular, the relationship between housing and population growth and traffic density is going down. So, we're seeing positive growth in population in housing. We're seeing negative growth in traffic density in London. We've looked at it for every London borough, and in every single London borough, that's the relationship that we've seen. So, we're becoming less reliant on the private car, and the reason for that is several fold. One is we are starting to live more locally. Our friends are more local. Our facilities are more local, and we can get around locally in different ways. And of course, we also have the advent of virtual travel - that's travel using the internet for whatever reason. That might be visiting your friends, speaking to people, getting shopping delivered, etc. So actually, our reliance is reducing. However, in answer to your leading question, we are still more reliant than we should be if we're trying to meet our climate and space goals, but we don't need to be. And to some extent, our planning system needs to be even more bullish. It's quite bullish, but it needs to be even more bullish in not designing for the fear that if one doesn't design for the private car, that there will be chaos.

 

Final and slightly related question – you and I have cycled together a lot. You clearly love cycling. What does cycling bring you in terms of your views on transport and infrastructure? 

 

Well, my views are slightly skewed, of course, by actually being a cyclist. But what we say is that we want people to use bicycles that aren't cyclists. Because it's simply a means of moving from one place to another place, fairly conveniently, and to some extent, in a way which provides health and mental health. So physical health and mental health. So, I've been skewed by the fact that I ride bicycles, and the reason that I've been skewed is because I realize how easy it is and how possible it is to do that. What is still quite irritating is that we do not prioritize good cycle facilities over good private car facilities. We still see in all parts of the UK that we do not do that, and we do not make it as easy or as practical as it really should be, relative to use of the private car. But the fact that I cycle means that I have experienced first-hand how frankly, easy it is, and how pleasant it is, and that has to some extent, affected my views on the ability for us to operate in a more active travel-oriented world. 

 

How well do you think we are doing currently in London on that front?

 

Not well. We talk ourselves up with a good story, but actually it's still, to the uninitiated, somewhat intimidating and a little fearful. If one wants to actually use a bicycle in London. Despite all the good things that have ever happened. But it's not nearly good enough. We can be doing a lot more, particularly in the outer boroughs. 

 

Yes. And road quality, I've noticed, is deteriorating at a sort of frightening rate, and that affects cyclists too, as well as cars with potholes, etc.

 

What I notice is that where we do have cycle facilities, that those facilities aren't maintained to the same standard as roads. They're not maintained. They're not swept. You have leaves, and in fact, the designs are almost on-paper designs, rather than practical designs. So, for instance, you've got metal work. You've got level changes to deal with: driveways, for instance, in some of our dedicated cycling locations where you bump up and down. The correct level of course, is still not being implemented, and you're right – when cyclists actually share the roads with vehicles we also have a problem with the quality of some of those roads, and the road furniture, I'll call it, that often occupies the space that a cyclist needs to occupy. That's not as good as it should be, as well. Going back to your earlier questions, there are some examples in Europe where it's done better, and it's done in such a way that people use bicycles, not in a head down, go as quickly as you can mode, but in a comfortable, doesn't matter, way.

 

Well, perhaps in the future, road quality won't be as important because we'll have cycle powered drones to get us everywhere in the air! 

 

Cycle powered drones! I like the idea of that!

 

Sounds good, doesn't it? Back to the Flying Machine. Excellent. Thank you, Mike, and thanks for your brilliant views.

 

Great. Thanks, David!