Building consensus for change in polarised times

Local transport is increasingly finding itself in the spotlight both at a national and local level - and it is not all bad news. 

I’ve been reflecting on the overwhelmingly positive press coverage that the recent launch of bus franchising in Greater Manchester has received , and contrasting that to the backlash against the proposed Clean Air Zone in the city in 2021, which is still stalled 18-months later.

The message? That public opinion plays a huge role in defining the success of local transport schemes, and as transport planners it’s crucial that we understand how to build and maintain public support for the projects we are working on.

We know that we must make significant progress in reducing transport carbon emissions this decade if we are to have any chance of meeting the Paris climate agreement targets. To do so many local transport authorities are embarking on major programmes of sustainable transport infrastructure and service delivery via funding such as City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements, Active Travel Fund and Bus Service Improvement Plans. And, yet, the cultural and political landscape within which the delivery of this critical transport activity will be taking place is increasingly polarised, with little consensus around the need for

real change in how we all travel to respond effectively to the climate emergency.

Worryingly, the vocal nature of detractors for local sustainable transport investment seems to have prompted government to dilute or distance itself from a range of policies, including the timing for phasing out of new petrol and diesel vehicle sales, low traffic neighbourhoods and clean air zones. Even seemingly benign concepts, such as 15-minute neighbourhoods , are coming under fire.

Talk to any senior local authority officer or elected Member involved in delivering sustainable transport schemes, and you hear increasingly extreme stories of personal attacks, particularly on social media platforms, with conspiracy theories and culture wars starting to gain more traction in communities across the country.

This is not an attractive prospect , but how do we build consensus for change in such divided times?

It’s clear from many of the debates currently taking place, that simply presenting evidence to communities on the benefits of sustainable transport investment isn’t enough, if people are fundamentally opposed on political or philosophical grounds.

It may be necessary to accept that there will always be a minority of the population who will be opposed to any perceived infringement on their “right to drive”, no matter what the potential local benefits. It’s often not worth spending too much valuable time a energy trying to engage and influence those parts of the population. However, there will be a large swathe of citizens who are less deeply entrenched, and who could be much more proactively engaged in local transport improvements if involved in visioning exercises and in developing and refining proposals throughout their evolution.

To work with people in this way it is essential that we don’t rely on solely on generic engagement materials for new schemes, but tailor conversations and information to their individual interests and values. To do so means finding out more about what they care about ,and showing them how changes to their local environment align with issues which are important to them. That will mean involving people from the local area and from different community groups to help lead parts of the engagement activity, and to be local advocates for the proposals.

It’s important to acknowledge how the narrative around new transport interventions can easily focus on what people are losing, rather than what the likely benefits will be - which plays directly into our human aversion to loss. It’s therefore crucial to tackle those biases directly, and also show how the current way of doing things results in bigger losses e.g. children being exposed to road danger or the impact on our health of poor air quality.

If specific examples can be given of the problems with the current status quo, then that will make the arguments for a new approach even more compelling. And real-life stories and images are always more compelling than generic data about the problems.

Techniques might include interviews with older or disabled people who struggle to walk to the local shops because of vehicles parked on footways, or children being driven to school because of fears about them walking on streets with speeding traffic. Similarly, showcasing how people have benefitted from similar schemes elsewhere in the country or internationally can also help to bring to life what is possible , and help people to visualise the benefits.

Carefully designed trials also have an important role to play in 'winning hearts and minds', ideally avoiding binary final decisions or referenda on schemes (‘shall we keep it- yes or no?’ ), but rather seeking to understand what people have gained from the intervention, and how it can be amended and improved to address any unintended negative impacts.

These tweaks can also be agreed through a process of ‘rough consensus’, where you iteratively identify improvements to schemes until the vast majority of the local population are able to express support (or at least not opposition).

The devil is often in the detail, so rather than engaging in a polarised discussion about whether a particular type of scheme is good and bad, it can be better to focus on what would make it acceptable to the majority of local people, and listen hard to the objections to understand what’s at the heart of them, and how they can be responded to in a constructive way.

Finally, we need to provide the support that helps officers and Members to hold their nerve -which I know is much easier said than done! Whilst listening to all views is critically important, we must ensure that the silent majority do not get drowned out by a vocal minority , and to really listen to suggestions on how schemes can be improved, rather than cancelling or removing them altogether. Running trials and being committed to making changes , if needed , is much better than just backtracking in the face of opposition.

If there is strong evidence and a compelling reason to implement improvements to local transport, then it’s surely important to hold onto these ambitions whilst actively listening to perspectives that perhaps hadn’t previously considered in designing a scheme.

The benefits of engaging effectively throughout a scheme’s development and delivery, and building support from the ground- up, will always outweigh the costs . Whilst it might be more time consuming at the start of a project, it will almost always save time and angst as you get closer to delivering the scheme.

The challenge of local engagement and consensus- building will be a major focus of the upcoming Local Transport Summit in Sheffield. Just as much as policy-making , this is a crucial debate for everyone involved in local transport . The Summit is a perfect opportunity for us all to share our experiences and thoughts on how we can successfully deliver the local transport improvements we know our communities need.

Nicola Kane joined Steer as a Director last year after eight years at Transport for Greater Manchester, where she was Head of Strategic Planning, Insight, and Innovation. She will be speaking at the Local Transport Summit