Strategies for local traffic demand management: A discussion paper

This report was prepared by CPCS. The CPCS Team acknowledges and is thankful for the input of those consulted, as well as the input and guidance of the Local Government Association.

Unless otherwise indicated, the opinions herein are those of the authors and those consulted and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Local Government Association. CPCS makes efforts to validate data obtained from third parties, but CPCS cannot warrant the accuracy of these data.

Context and challenges for councils in supporting local transport

Local councils in England bear the responsibility of maintaining an efficient, reliable, and sustainable local transport network that is the backbone to local economic growth and opportunity. This includes managing highways, facilitating car, bus, and bicycle journeys, as well as promoting walking and wheeling. However, the prevalent reliance on cars for daily travel - 88 per cent of passenger kilometres were travelled by cars, vans, and taxis in 2021 - can pose significant challenges such as traffic congestion, air pollution, and diminished quality of life for some. Moreover, vehicle mileage has increased by 10 per cent over six years, exacerbating these issues. Despite an overall recognition by the government of the need to reduce car dependency, national traffic projections indicate a looming increase in traffic volumes, especially under a system where EVs continue to pay no distance-based fuel duty equivalent, and the fuel duty freeze is into its second decade and the fuel duty cut has been maintained under a Labour Chancellor.. This highlights the urgency for robust measures to support decarbonisation and decongestion efforts locally. In this context, tools such as Congestion Charging and Workplace Parking Levy have been exceptional in their impact and public acceptance after initial opposition. However, inconsistent funding from central government and mixed messaging about local policies to reduce traffic adds to the hurdles faced by local authorities, impeding their ability to address local transport challenges effectively. The new government has signalled a return to support rather than opposition to effective local TDM. Congestion, air pollution and climate change are  barriers to health, employment, income and opportunity that will require local and central government to work closely together in partnership, rather than at cross purposes, to overcome effectively.

Introduction to traffic demand management tools

Traffic Demand Management (TDM) is the process of improving transport efficiency to reduce congestion and make better use of transport infrastructure. TDM strategies fall broadly into three categories – network management, behaviour change, and capacity creation. Some tools only have an impact on one, while some have an impact on all three categories. The study and this discussion paper focuses on strategies related to network management that may be employed by local authorities, while acknowledging that creating new transport capacity and incentivising behaviour change can also help to optimise traffic demand on local networks.

Implementing an effective TDM strategy requires a thoughtful consideration of the overall goals and desired outcomes. Local authorities undertaking TDM initiatives must identify their specific objectives, which could range from alleviating congestion during peak periods or throughout the day to achieving cost savings in highway and parking infrastructure, reducing pollution, providing more transport options for drivers and non-drivers, decarbonisation, enhancing the liveability and accessibility of neighbourhoods, or improving public health. A list of TDM strategies is shown in table one.
 

Table one: TDM strategies

In addition, the UK government imposes a fuel duty on petrol, diesel and other fuels used in vehicles. This duty serves multiple purposes, including generating revenue for the government and discouraging excessive fuel consumption to mitigate environmental impacts. During periods of exceptionally high oil prices, the government may opt to maintain or even reduce fuel duty rates to alleviate the financial burden on households and businesses dependent on transport. This approach aims to support economic stability and affordability in the face of rising fuel costs. However, with the advent of electric vehicles, fuel duty is becoming a less effective tool for demand management and requires a replacement scheme. 

Policies like the London Congestion Charge and the Nottingham Workplace Parking Levy have significantly influenced various aspects through all three channels: enhancing network management by decreasing numerous replaceable car trips, prompting behavioural shifts through transparent pricing signals and alternative promotion, and supporting infrastructure expansion by reinvesting revenues into extra buses and extending tram lines.

Figure 1 shows the public acceptance and costs of implementation of the strategies. TDM strategies require significant resources for implementation and are often met with public resistance. TDM strategies that impose direct costs on drivers are especially costly and controversial to the public.

Figure 1: Cost and Acceptance Comparison

Experiences of Councils Using TDM Tools

We present three case studies of local councils' endeavours to deploy TDM tools, including Bath, Leicester, and West Sussex. The case studies highlight the difficulty of introducing such schemes and the critical role of central government in enabling successful local transport initiatives. In Bath, clear, measurable and legally binding government targets and funding for CAZs facilitated successful local implementation, positioning the council as a success story for CAZs. Leicester's attempts to introduce a  WPL showcase the impact of inconsistent messaging and support from central government, and how such schemes are vulnerable to external events, leading to an ultimately unsuccessful attempt under favourable local political and practical circumstances. Similarly, the challenges of West Sussex in their Road Space Audit (RSA) highlight how politically difficult it is for forward-thinking councils to try to address congestion and parking challenges ahead of time.

Most demand management schemes will be unpopular when they are first proposed, and the case studies of Bath, Leicester, and West Sussex underscore the consistent initial public opposition to TDM schemes. Residents are unlikely to ever welcome the prospect of paying extra or have restrictions in making their usual commute or park outside their home. But most schemes are in time accepted and appreciated once in place and removing them would generate significant opposition. This recurring profile of support for TDM interventions, opposition in theory becoming support in practice, should inform local and national government’s approach to making vital improvements to local transport and shape its messaging, stakeholder engagement, funding and powers.

Congestion is a major challenge for councils. Traffic leads to delays, loss of economic output and opportunity, as well as increased pollution. For example, Leicester experiences significant traffic congestion during peak hours, leading to delays, economic losses, increased pollution, and a decline in the job opportunities available to anyone who must rely on public or active travel. Inadequate funding for public transport systems like buses, trams, and trains limits the capacity to provide efficient services and leaves more people dependent on car travel. Insufficient investment in cycling infrastructure also deters people from choosing cycling as a viable mode of transport, further contributing to the reliance on cars and exacerbating congestion. Moreover, without adequate funding for the maintenance and expansion of public transport networks, the quality and reliability of these services may deteriorate, discouraging people from using them and making cars the only option for many people who may prefer an alternative.

Funding reductions over the past decade, particularly in central government grants, further exacerbate congestion issues. Recent increases to roads and bus funding are welcome but the quality of roads is still deteriorating and bus services significantly reduced while walking and cycling infrastructure continues to be insufficient. Against this backdrop of funding challenges, demand for the road network continues to grow while road maintenance costs are also growing. The lack of funding makes it harder to address public concerns about a lack of alternative travel modes. 

Political priorities can further complicate the feasibility of transport initiatives. Collaboration between local authorities and central government is essential to address misalignments between benefits and costs, support funding initiatives, and promote innovative solutions. Additionally, navigating public opinion and stakeholder engagement is crucial for building legitimacy and consensus around transport interventions.

Firstly, recent approaches from central government to decarbonisation and traffic demand management lacks sufficient ambition, hindering local authorities' ability to enact comprehensive strategies to tackle traffic congestion and carbon emissions. We recommend that central government set clear policy direction for local government in this respect and commit long-term to it. Secondly, we recommend that central government continue to empower local authorities through devolution and increased control over transport policies. The new bus services act is a move in the right direction, and the English Devolution Bill provides an opportunity to address any legislative barriers to empowering local authorities to effectively managing their local transport system. Thirdly, sustainable funding mechanisms are crucial for enabling local authorities to implement and ensure that traffic demand management policies can be pursued effectively within a wider, preceding strategy of local transport improvements.

Recommended actions:

• Assess with local government why no cities, other than London and Nottingham, have used the most high-profile traffic demand management strategies, and places that have looked have backed off.
• Propose policy reforms and legislative changes to align national priorities with local needs and facilitate the adoption of evidence-based strategies for reducing congestion and improving mobility.
• Publicly support local policies to encourage sustainable transport choices through positive and consistent messaging and education.
• Provide greater devolution of powers to local authorities, enabling them to tailor traffic demand management strategies within the specific transport needs and priorities of their communities.
• Provide dedicated funding streams and sustainable financing mechanisms and incentives to support the implementation and maintenance of TDM initiatives at the local level.
• Government must progress with its Fuel Duty replacement scheme to ensure traffic volumes do not rise faster and revenues fall further as EV take up grows. It should work with local government so that a national scheme can support or work in combination with local demand management schemes.

Scope of the Study

The LGA has commissioned CPCS to conduct a study on local traffic demand management strategies. This report gives a comprehensive view of direct and indirect transport and spatial planning powers for managing traffic demand, by setting out the options and measures available to councils and outlining the powers and steps required for councils to implement them. The study also examines the political challenges and opportunities they provide, lessons from existing schemes, and highlights recommendations for central government to help councils who want to implement demand management measures.

Background

Councils are responsible for supporting an effective, reliable, and sustainable local transport network. They build and maintain their highway network, and seek to manage and support journeys by car, bus and bicycle in the carriageway and walking and wheeling on the footway.

Car dependency

As car ownership has become more attainable, cars have become indispensable tools for millions across England, facilitating daily commutes, shopping trips, and essential errands. In fact, according to Transport Statistics Great Britain (2022), cars, vans, and taxis accounted for a vast majority (88 per cent) of passenger kilometres travelled in 2021. For many, especially those in rural areas where distances are greater, and public transport options are limited, cars are even more critical. In addition, electric vehicles (EVs), contribute to decarbonisation and a healthier environment.

However, this rise in the number of cars on the road has brought some problems too, including traffic congestion, poor air quality and diminished quality of life for many residents on busy roads. Total vehicle mileage increased by 10 per cent – 33 billion miles – in just six years from 2013 to 2019. All forms of public transport experienced a significant decrease in trip rates in 2020, which was likely due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, in 2021, trip rates for all selected modes of public transport saw a slight increase but remained lower than pre-pandemic (2019) levels (National Travel Survey, 2022) although motor traffic is now back at pre-pandemic levels (Domestic Transport Usage by Mode, Department for Transport (DfT) April 2024). Top of Form The pandemic also affected public transport systems, with ridership declining sharply during the height of the crisis. Some commuters who previously relied on buses, trains, or trams shifted to private vehicles for perceived safety reasons, contributing to increased road demand.

The DfT’s national traffic projections say that under all the scenarios tested traffic volume is set to rise with the most modest estimate being an increase of 8 per cent by 2060. Under the ‘core’ scenario traffic could rise by 22 per cent, and under the ‘Technology Scenario’ by 54 per cent. These projections reflect the potential of cheaper running costs associated with electric vehicles. Other modes of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport, which support important wider policy ambitions, including transport decarbonisation and public health, are likely to suffer due to such an increase in vehicle miles driven.

TDM tools

TDM is the process of improving transport efficiency to reduce congestion and make better use of transport infrastructure. TDM strategies fall into three categories – network management, behaviour change, and capacity creation. This study focuses on strategies related to network management that may be employed by local authorities, while acknowledging that creating new transport capacity and incentivising behaviour change can also help to optimise traffic demand on local networks.

Local councils possess a range of tools at their disposal to address transport challenges, but the effectiveness of these tools can vary significantly depending on factors such as cost, public acceptance, and suitability for different contexts, including urban and rural areas.

Local transport issues

Central government has recognised the need to improve local transport systems. It published a National Bus Strategy, a Walking and Cycling Strategy and a transport decarbonisation plan and acknowledged the necessity of reducing traffic, with national traffic projections indicating a looming increase in traffic volumes. This underscores the urgency for more robust measures to support decarbonisation efforts. Government has created tools like the WPL and congestion charging to aid in congestion management. However, there's a notable inconsistency in messaging, exemplified by initiatives such as the Plan for Drivers (2023), which framed council interventions to support shared and national ambitions as anti-driver.

Furthermore, local government faces significant hurdles due to inconsistent funding from central government. This lack of financial support exacerbates existing transport challenges. As shown in Figure 2, local authority spending power declined by 17.5 per cent from 2009/10 to 2019/20. Spending power started to increase after this period but was still 10 per cent less in 2021/22 than it was in 2009/10. This drop happened mostly due to the decline in central government grants, as seen in Figure 3. Between 2009/10 and 2019/20, these grants were cut by 40 per cent, going from £46.5 billion to £28 billion. Although grants were provided to local authorities during COVID-19 to help with pandemic-related spending, the total amount of grant funding went down by 21 per cent in real terms between 2009/10 and 2021/22. Discounting COVID-related grants, grant funding decreased by a total of 31 per cent during this period. This trend highlights the funding challenges local authorities face in seeking to address local transport challenges. A lack of adequate funding makes it harder for councils to invest in longer-term transport initiatives, such as congestion management. Implementing an effective TDM strategy would be able to improve transport efficiency by reducing congestion, making better use of existing transport infrastructure and potentially raise revenue for further investment in public transport.

Figure 2: Change in local authority spending power since 2009/10, by type of authority

Figure 3: Local authority revenues by source (2021/22 prices)

TDM involves the implementation of strategies and policies aimed at enhancing the efficiency of transport systems. These measures seek to either decrease travel demand or redistribute it across different spatial or temporal dimensions. In the following section, we will delve into demand management tools and explore the obstacles encountered by local authorities in their efforts to manage transport effectively.

Example strategies comparisons

TDM strategies require significant resources for implementation and are often met with public resistance. At the same time, TDM strategies that impose direct costs on drivers are especially costly and controversial to the public. Figure 4 shows the public acceptance and costs of implementation of TDM strategies.

The next section describes each of the strategies above in further detail.

Road charging

Road charging works by setting up designated zones where vehicles are required to pay a fee to enter or drive within the area during certain times of the day. These fees can vary based on factors such as vehicle type, emissions, time of day, and purpose of travel. The revenue generated from road charging schemes is often reinvested into transport infrastructure, public transport improvements, or sustainable transport initiatives. By imposing fees on vehicles entering specific zones, road charging schemes incentivise behaviour change among commuters and encourage the use of public transport or active travel modes.

What conditions can lead to a more effective implementation of Road charging?

Congestion charging zones are implemented in areas experiencing high levels of traffic congestion, especially during peak hours. Section III and Schedule 12 of the Transport Act 2000, as revised by the Local Transport Act 2008, outline provisions for implementing road charging schemes outside of London. Provisions in the Act allow integrated transport authorities to make a charging scheme jointly with local traffic authorities, and without the approval of the Secretary of State (SoS) for their schemes. Local authorities must have the legal authority to introduce congestion charging schemes, typically by applying for approval from the SoS for Transport. They have benefits for decarbonisation, improved air quality and funding public and active travel alternatives.

Road user charging tracks vehicle movements and charges according to distance travelled and potentially where and when. Adequate technological infrastructure, such as GPS, communication networks, and backend systems for data processing and billing, must be in place to support the charging system. Currently, local authorities cannot impose road charging without the Secretary of State's permission. Traffic authorities wanting to introduce a Road charging scheme must make a Charging Scheme Order (CSO) under Part III Transport Act 2000. Sections 171 to 172 of the Traffic Act 2000 set out the basic elements which must be included in a CSO – the roads to be charged, how the charges are defined, the classes of motor vehicles that will be subject to a charge, the levels of road user charge and the duration of the scheme. These elements are for the traffic authority to determine.

CAZs are not strictly a means to manage demand for congestion, but to shape demand for air quality improvement. They have a specific focus on tackling nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in areas that are breaching internationally agreed legal limits that the UK government has signed up to and been taken to court to abide by. UK government set local authorities to achieve air quality objectives and targets through the implementation of CAZs, in line with national air quality standards and legal requirements. The ability for charging authorities to introduce a clean air zone is set out in the Transport Act 2000. Part III of the Act empowers local authorities (as “charging authorities”) to make a local charging scheme for the use or keeping of motor vehicles on roads. The CAZ Central Services (fees) (England) Regulations 2020 enable the SoS to charge local authorities in England for using the Clean Air Zones Central Services.

Parking charges

Charging for parking helps to regulate the demand for parking spaces and encourages efficient use of limited spaces. Free or inexpensive parking can lead to overuse by parkers who occupy valuable spaces at the expense of short-term users. This can limit access to businesses, hospitals, schools, and other services. Parking demand that exceeds supply can result in “circling” where cars go around the local area many times in search of limited parking. This can cause more congestion and delay.

What conditions can lead to more effective implementation of these parking charges?

Charging for public car parks is more effective when local authorities have sufficient control over car parks in their areas. For instance, lifting parking charges for public car parks to manage demand is less effective if private car parks do not do the same, as users will gravitate to the less expensive car parks. Local authorities in England have the responsibility to enforce parking restrictions. This duty is guided by statutory guidance issued by the SoS for Transport under the Traffic Management Act 2004. Local authorities do not have legal powers to set parking charges higher than necessary to achieve the objective of relieving or preventing traffic congestion.

Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) may be difficult to implement but popular once in place. Residents and businesses within the proposed CPZ may oppose the restrictions and associated costs, especially if they rely on street parking for their daily activities. However, once implemented, local authorities have said that residents and businesses with designated parking in those zones tend to approve of CPZs because they prioritise parking for residents and businesses within the designated area, ensuring they have access to parking spaces near their homes or workplaces. This reduces competition for parking and alleviates the frustration of searching for a parking spot. Parking policy generates strong opinions due to the high levels of car ownership and on-street parking in many towns and cities. In Bristol, attempts to expand CPZs by an independent mayor were dropped and a no-confidence vote was called after opposition. In addition, CPZs come with administrative and enforcement costs that may outweigh the revenue they generate. The UK government provides statutory guidance for local authorities on civil enforcement of CPZs. The Traffic Management Act 2004 emphasises national consistency while allowing flexibility to suit local circumstances.

While the implementation of Workplace Parking Levies may pose challenges initially, businesses can find value in the scheme through its contribution to sustainable transport. The levy incentivises businesses to promote alternative modes of transport among their employees, such as public transport, cycling, or carpooling. This can lead to reduced congestion and environmental benefits, aligning with corporate sustainability goals. Under Chapter 12 of the Transport Act 2000, certain local traffic authorities have the power to introduce workplace parking levy licensing schemes allowing them to charge the occupier of premises for a licence for car parking spaces which are occupied by motor vehicles and provided for use by employees, agents, suppliers, business customers or business visitors of a relevant person. There must be a formal consultation and the development of a business case, impact assessments and revenue plans.

Nottingham City is the only place which has implemented the Workplace Parking Levy (WPL), as detailed in a retrospective post. 

In 2007, congestion was costing the city’s local economy £160m a year, and the WPL has played a part in constraining congestion growth by 47%, saving the city over £15m per year, with local businesses receiving direct benefits of around £7.7m per year. It has also helped to improve air quality, contributing towards a 58% reduction in CO2 emissions since 2005 and negating the need for a chargeable Clean Air Zone. This makes a significant contribution towards Nottingham’s ambition to become the first carbon neutral UK city by 2028.

Money raised from the WPL was used to fund the expansion of the existing tram system; transforming Nottingham Station into a welcoming gateway to the city; and supporting the Linkbus network which provides a valuable service running on routes that would not otherwise be commercially viable for operators.

Physical restrictions

Physical restrictions, such as bus lanes and bollards restrict certain routes by car and improve journeys by foot, bus, or bike to make them a more attractive option.  
 

What conditions can lead to more effective implementation of physical restrictions, such as in Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and bus lanes?

Local authorities have the power to establish Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN) within their jurisdictions. LTNs use planters and/or cameras to stop traffic by car by making these journeys impossible or liable for a fine. LTNs have often faced initial opposition from some groups when they are put in. LTNs have been framed as a clash between the freedom to drive without obstruction and the desire for tranquil streets and improved air quality. However, most (6 out of 10) residents surveyed in a DfT study into LTNs were unaware that they lived in one. The DfT has issued statutory guidance that LTNs should only be introduced where there is clear local backing and where they are well-designed to avoid causing undue problems for drivers, emergency services, or other road users.

In England, the legal authority to implement bus lanes lies with highway authorities, typically county and metropolitan councils, as well as unitary authorities. These authorities have the power to regulate traffic within their areas by creating Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). These TROs are established under Part I of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Bus lanes are introduced through these TROs, and they carry penalties for misuse

Recent national examples highlight the challenges local councils have long faced in using the most effective demand management tools. In Oxford, plans for the LTN initiative sparked debates among residents. The introduction of a CAZ in Birmingham also faced some opposition about the potential impact on vehicle access and the associated costs of compliance. In 2007 Manchester rejected plans for a congestion charge scheme in a referendum, with critics expressing concerns about the fairness of the proposed charges and the adequacy of public transport alternatives.

This chapter examines several case studies of local councils' endeavours to deploy TDM tools, focusing on local authorities such as Bath, Leicester, and West Sussex. Each case study offers valuable insights into the complexities and obstacles encountered by local authorities in their efforts to manage transport demand effectively.

Leicester Council Workplace Parking Levy case study

The main transport challenge faced by Leicester is congestion in the city centre, due to a high proportion of residents driving. As one of the top ten most populous cities in England, Leicester explored innovative ways to deal with congestion, such as the WPL scheme already deployed in Nottingham.

Political leadership played a significant role pursuing a WPL. Leicester has a directly elected mayor, who has been in the role since 2011 and champions transport planning. After years of investigation, and inclusion in the Mayor’s 2019 election manifesto, in 2021 Leicester City Council proposed a WPL as part of its efforts to address traffic congestion and promote sustainable transport. Leicester had reviewed several demand management options, such as congestion charging and low emission zones, and believed the WPL was the best option for the city because it was the most deliverable strategy and would have the greatest impact. The council aimed to introduce the Levy in 2023 to achieve a 10 per cent modal shift to alternative modes of transport while bringing in an income of about £95 million in the first 10 years. Leicester worked directly with Nottingham to plan how a WPL would be implemented and supported the publication of a toolkit with Nottingham to help other areas introduce the WPL. However, in November 2022 the proposed implementation of the Workplace Parking Levy was scrapped and declared unlikely to return by the Mayor. Two major reasons are:

1. Cost of living crisis: During the time taken to look at options, consult, and introduce the WPL, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine War fed a cost-of-living crisis that required central government to introduce an emergency 5p cut to fuel duty and caps on energy bills. Consultation responses at this time were overwhelmingly negative, with the strongest objections from schools, hospitals, and unions. 
    
2. WPL legislation and approvals: Leicester was concerned that the SoS might not sign off on a formal proposal. The uncertainty was a major risk for the council in moving forward with WPL planning.

Lessons learned:

• A longer process leaves proposals vulnerable to events: Acting swiftly when implementing new schemes or addressing emerging challenges in transport. 
• Consultations are likely to highlight opposition: Consultations will do an excellent job of highlighting the views of people opposed to proposals. But they should not be interpreted as polls or representative of public opinion widely, and that common profile of increasing acceptance once schemes are in place should give confidence that views expressed are likely to change within a well-designed scheme.
• Secretary of State sign-off is a barrier: The requirement for approval from the SoS introduces an additional layer of bureaucracy, delay, and risk of refusal. Local authorities must embark on a long and expensive process without certainty that in the end they will get approval.

West Sussex Council, road space audit case study

West Sussex is a two-tier area across seven district councils, covering major economic areas such as Gatwick Airport and Crawley, rural areas, and busy coastal routes. The seven district councils focus on more localised issues within their district and can address immediate community needs with greater specificity. Districts control parking policy, while the county is responsible for the highway and transport.

Chichester Road space audit

West Sussex currently has seven separate parking schemes within the county. Parking schemes are typically locally led within the county where districts would lobby the county/district for a scheme, and the council would then generate a programme. However, this approach is focused on parking issues rather than more comprehensive demand management.

In 2017, West Sussex County Council initiated a proactive approach called the Road Space Audit (RSA) to manage current and future demand for roads in the county. This approach involves evaluating and planning how roads are used and considering upcoming development proposals for the next 5-10 years. By anticipating future demands and recommending improvements, the audit aims to help officials prepare for future challenges, adjust resources, and improve the efficiency of the road network and parking availability, as well as to predict and prevent future traffic problems. The RSA was tested in Chichester, where several CPZs were already in operation. The scheme includes various stages, starting with expanding CPZs into a city-wide parking scheme across Chichester, followed by managing congestion, promoting cycling, and so forth.

The proposed intervention faced a few challenges: 

• Future problems are a harder sell to elected members: The scheme required significant discussions with Chichester councillors who were concerned about the scale of the work. Part of the concern revolved around the fact that the scheme included measures in areas of the county that currently had no issues but were forecast to experience traffic issues in the future. Over two years, council staff worked with policymakers to explain the scheme and roll out extensive public consultations where tens of thousands of residents were consulted. 
• Future problems are a hard sell to residents: The first stage of city-wide parking management in Chichester faced opposition, with 36 per cent in support and 57 per cent opposed to a Parking Management Plan across the town. Analysis indicates that there were considerable variations in opinion across Chichester. Figure 5 shows the zones shaded by the level of support (strongly support + support combined) expressed. Green depicts those zones where the total support is at least 50 per cent. These zones are already within an existing CPZ. Those where the level of support is 40-49 per cent are shown in orange and zones with the lowest level of support (<40 per cent) are shown in red.

Figure 5: Support for a city-wide parking management plan by zone

Residents were resistant to what was perceived as onerous parking control measures, especially in areas with no traffic or parking issues. Recognising the levels of opposition, West Sussex halted the city-wide parking scheme. West Sussex is now focused on developing new CPZ reactively and incrementally to not get too far ahead in public opinion.

Lessons learned:

• Getting ahead of problems is hard: Taking action ahead of demand is politically difficult and can lead to frustration.
• Getting ahead of problems is valuable: However, thinking strategically offers a framework for tackling issues consistently and efficiently as they arise.

Bath & North East Somerset Council, Clean Air Zone case study

Bath & North East Somerset Council (B&NES) oversees both the city of Bath and its surrounding rural areas and market towns in Somerset. Despite boasting UNESCO World Heritage sites, strategic travel corridors cut through the entirety of the city. This results in significant freight traffic and NO2 levels exceeding the national level. Moreover, the city's numerous hills can pose challenges for active travel options.

B&NES is the highway authority but is part of a regional approach to transport policy. The current council leadership has the first strong majority on the council in a long time – representatives strongly support sustainability and active travel which has made it easier to work through transport initiatives.

B&NES was one of the areas required by government to act in the shortest possible time and by 2021 at the latest to reduce harmful nitrogen dioxide levels in the city. It was required to come up with an effective plan by the end of 2018. It proposed a charging CAZ, which covers a designated area within Bath where targeted measures are enforced to reduce emissions from vehicles. Under the scheme, vehicles that fail to meet specified emissions standards are subject to charges when entering the designated zone. One year after the introduction of CAZ, Bath showed a 26 per cent reduction in nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant from vehicle exhausts; The non-compliant vehicles have fallen from 6 per cent to 1 per cent, which is just under 500 vehicles a day.

B&NES council included the CAZ within a broader Transport Delivery Action Plan, addressing the climate emergency, road congestion and inequality whilst improving health, wellbeing, and air quality. This plan is meant to create transparency to show how various interventions link together to the wider strategy around decarbonisation.
 

Lessons learned:

Despite not being TDM strictly, Bath’s CAZ program stands out as a bold and effective response to the city’s air quality crisis.

• It must be done: The central government mandated action, providing both clear and measurable targets and deadlines for improvement as well as financial support for implementation. This gave the council licence to say ‘it must be done’ while also engaging and coordinating policy as much as possible to minimise opposition.
• Comprehensive approach: Bath's response was noteworthy for its comprehensive approach, implementing a charging scheme that covered not only commercial vehicles but also private cars—a move unlike the more limited schemes seen elsewhere. This broad scope was crucial in addressing the root causes of pollution and garnered public support.
• Strong leadership from the council: Strong leadership from the council played a pivotal role in ensuring the scheme's viability and navigating it through the legislative process. The CAZ was strategically placed within broader plans and messaging, emphasising its role in promoting sustainable transport and enhancing public health.

As a result, the scheme had a tangible impact, significantly reducing NO2 levels and improving air quality. Public opinion shifted positively, with initial scepticism giving way to support as the benefits became evident. The success of Bath's CAZ underscores the importance of government support, clear targets, and enforceable measures in tackling air pollution effectively and garnering public acceptance for ambitious environmental initiatives.

Summary

The case studies highlight the critical role of central government in enabling successful local transport initiatives. In Bath, clear and measurable government targets, and funding for CAZs facilitated successful local implementation, positioning the council as a model for addressing air quality concerns. Conversely, Leicester's struggles with WPL showcase the challenge even under the best conditions and the need for consistent messaging and support for such policies from the central government to overcome practical and political hurdles locally. Similarly, the failure of West Sussex in the RSA highlights how the absence of national support, both in messaging and funding, for strategic policy initiatives hampers the ability of forward-thinking councils to effectively address challenges ahead of time.

Most demand management schemes will be unpopular when they are first proposed, but the case studies underscore both the consistent initial public opposition to TDM schemes as well as how public opposition can be turned. If councils wait for residents to welcome being charged to drive or park, these tools would most likely never be used. Accepting this fact is a more useful starting point for central government to reform demand management messaging, stakeholder engagement, funding, and powers.

Local authorities have historically faced challenges that have limited the successful implementation of innovative solutions for traffic management, with the most effective policies often proving to be the most difficult to enact. Unfortunately, central government's approach to addressing these challenges is often inconsistent and inadequate. For example, the transport decarbonisation plan (2021) advocates sustainable transport modes but does not mention TDM despite its important role in lowering transport emissions. Moreover, two years later central government published its plan for drivers (2023) promoting a pro-driver rhetoric in opposition to local policy emphasising individual vehicle ownership, and prioritising road expansion over alternative modes of transport. This policy reversal addedconfusion for local government around their ability to deliver TDM schemes for their communities.

However, there is potential for improvement through strong support from the central government, clear communication regarding the importance of TDM, and integration of TDM into decarbonisation strategies, where demand management lacks focus.

Policy reforms and legislative changes

Despite the importance of TDM measures, they remain difficult to implement across all levels of government, from central government’s pressures to freeze and cut fuel duty and the lack of action on its aim to replace fuel duty, to the introduction of congestion charges, WPLs or controlled parking zones. There is currently a misalignment for local authorities between the short-term costs of implementing TDM measures and their long-term benefits. We suggest central government propose policy reforms and legislative changes to align national priorities with local needs and facilitate the adoption of evidence-based strategies for reducing congestion.

Central government stands to benefit from promoting more success stories in traffic demand management. The responsibility of central government in this endeavour lies in setting national policies and frameworks that incentivise and support innovative traffic management solutions. Incorporating TDM initiatives into national policies and funding mechanisms can significantly contribute to lowering transport emissions and improving local and national transport accessibility. For instance, investing in public transport infrastructure, such as expanding bus and rail networks, not only improves mobility but also reduces the reliance on private vehicles, thereby decreasing carbon emissions and reducing congestion. As transport evolves, effective demand management will require increased collaboration and partnership between local and central government entities. Therefore, central government has a vested interest in providing more attention and support to traffic management initiatives.

Central government should initiate comprehensive reviews of existing transport policies, regulations, and frameworks and publicly support local policies to encourage sustainable transport choices through positive and consistent messaging and education. This should include a review in collaboration with local authorities into why local congestion is bad in many places, but traffic demand management tools are largely underused and unused. The Plan for Drivers did not provide that vision, and the change in tone and policy from the new government towards greater local determination is a positive move. For instance, clear policy direction and funding reforms to the WPL initiative would provide greater confidence and capacity to local authorities like Leicester to introduce these schemes. By modernising policies and fostering a supportive regulatory and funding environment, central government enables local authorities to implement more effective and responsive transport strategies that meet the evolving needs of communities. Additionally, providing consistency across the country through clear guidance and access to standardised back-office tools further empowers local authorities to streamline their efforts and maximise the impact of their initiatives. This consistency ensures that best practices are shared and adopted widely, facilitating smoother implementation processes, and fostering collaboration between different regions.

Empowering local authorities

The UK operates within a predominantly centralised decision-making framework, where central government typically oversees the implementation of TDM schemes. Nevertheless, local authorities are best positioned to determine the desired outcomes of TDM schemes and integrate them with local networks and wider economic and social strategies. These authorities, responsible for managing operations within their jurisdictions, can more effectively address the needs of residents and align schemes with local policy objectives.

To empower local authorities further, central government should devolve more powers in the English Devolution Bill, with every part of the country holding the powers and funding to deliver the broad range of transport improvements within which TDM will have to play an important role. This should include greater flexibility to set and enforce moving and stationary traffic offences. It should not cost a council more money to tow and store an illegally parked vehicle than it costs for the owner to release it. Parking fines or streetworks penalties should not be so low as to lose their deterrence effect. Future central government guidance for Local Transport Plans should include clear outcomes and metrics to be delivered with support for TDM wherever this is deemed necessary locally to achieve these goals. An incentive-based approach could be applied to promote significant improvements, ensuring that the use of effective demand management tools is treated as ordinary rather than exceptional.

Sustainable funding mechanisms

Road infrastructure projects entail lengthy development and delivery timelines. Major road initiatives, such as highway expansions or new bypasses, may span multiple political administrations. To foster investment confidence, local authorities and road industry require a consistent policy framework and stable funding. Highways England enjoys five-year funding periods and significant resources and autonomy to support the strategic road network. Network Rail has a similar funding mechanism, and this approach has been extended from London to all Mayoral Combined Authorities through the five-year City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements to invest in local transport and deliver on key outcomes. Sustainable funding mechanisms that allow investment in improvements to alternatives such as walking, cycling and bus travel ahead of any TDM are critical to allowing local authorities to offer communities a clear package of system-wide improvements within which vital TDM projects can sit. Central government ought to provide dedicated funding streams and sustainable financing mechanisms and incentives to support the implementation and maintenance of TDM initiatives at the local level.
 

Fuel duty replacement scheme

Central government must introduce a fuel duty replacement scheme as the use of petrol and diesel vehicles decreases and as electric vehicles increase. The sale of new petrol and diesel cars will be banned starting in 2035, meaning that fuel duty becomes less meaningful as a demand management tool. The Transport Committee recommended charging people based on miles travelled and the Government have previously stated to protect revenues from motoring taxes. Any replacement scheme needs to address the balance between simplicity, fairness, costs, privacy and effectiveness. However, central government should accelerate its plans to ensure that drivers are contributing towards funding future transport investments.  
 

Forward-Looking

As we chart a course for the future of transport, it is important to recognise that the TDM strategies that have served us in the past may not suffice for the challenges ahead.

The landscape of transport is evolving rapidly, with emerging trends such as the increasing size and weight of cars, electric vehicles, digital infrastructure, climate vulnerabilities, the advancement of autonomous and connected vehicles, and so on. Therefore, we would urge central government to champion forward-thinking approaches to address these evolving challenges. This includes providing ambitious policy direction on transport demand management, investing in sustainable and resilient transport infrastructure, prioritising public transport and alternative modes of travel, and embracing technological advancements to enhance network efficiency and safety. We are confident that with a strong partnership between central government and local government, we can deliver sustainable transport solutions for the 21st century to help ensure a sustainable and equitable future for all.

Consultations

As part of the study, CPCS conducted interviews with local authorities and regional bodies in England, such as local transport authorities and mayoral combined authority areas. Interviews were undertaken across diverse authorities from a geographic and political perspective. For each local authority that participated, CPCS sought perspectives from both a council member and the transport office.

The interviews were semi-structured and lasted up to one hour long. Both the information shared and the interviewee/local authority providing the information was kept confidential to allow freedom to speak openly during the interview. The specific questions discussed were as follows:

1. Background: We know from desk research that your local authority has been working on certain demand management strategies. Could you tell us a little about what the issue was and why you were trying to address this issue?
2. Approaches and prioritisation: Can you discuss the range of traffic demand management approaches considered by your local authority and why certain options were prioritised over others?
3. Political considerations: In evaluating different traffic demand management models, how did political considerations, such as community acceptance and local government priorities, shape the decision-making process? Were there specific political priorities or challenges that guided the decision-making process?
4. Community input: Were there specific community engagement strategies employed to gauge public opinion and address concerns related to the traffic demand management measures? How did this input influence the decision-making process?
5. Implementation: What steps were followed in implementing these traffic demand management approaches and how did they influence the overall impact of the scheme? What lessons would you have for others that may want to do the same, or for yourselves if you were to do this again?
6. Central government: Do you have a view as to what central government could do to facilitate implementation of traffic demand management measures that could be implemented in your local community?

Limitations

This report relies on publicly available resources and perspectives shared through consultations. While CPCS makes efforts to verify the information shared, CPCS cannot guarantee the accuracy of such information.

Overview of TDM strategies

This section presents an overview and comparison of TDM strategies that local authorities may employ.

Road charging

Parking management

Physical restrictions