Luton Local Transport Plan 4: Evidence Base
Luton Borough Council
July 2020
Prepared on behalf of Luton Borough Council by: Small Fish www.smallfish.org.uk
Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ...... 4 2 Supporting a healthy environment ...... 6 2.1 Connectivity ...... 6 Road and passenger transport ...... 6 International networks – Luton Airport ...... 7 Other towns (time by public transport, number of changes)...... 8 There and back journeys in a day/ half a day to other towns, and workforce within 30 minutes of Luton ...... 10 2.2 Employment and Commuting ...... 10 Workplace of employed resident population ...... 11 Out-commuting distance and mode share of these commuting trips ...... 12 In-commuting distance and mode share of these commuting trips ...... 14 Residence of the workplace population ...... 16 Net in/out commuting population...... 17 Long stay car parking ...... 18 2.3 Housing and population ...... 21 Forecast housing growth ...... 21 Growth areas...... 21 Forecast population growth ...... 21 2.4 Transport demand ...... 22 Traffic ...... 22 Annual Average Daily Flows ...... 23 Heavy Goods Vehicles and Freight ...... 25 Traffic growth forecasts ...... 25 Car ownership, average number of vehicles (cars or vans) per household ...... 28 Public transport patronage (number of rail passenger journeys, number of bus passenger journeys ...... 29 2.5 Congestion/ over-crowding...... 31 Delays, forecast congestion, journey reliability on key routes ...... 32 Number of travel plans ...... 33 Bus punctuality ...... 36
2.6 Reducing CO2 Emissions ...... 37
CO2 from road transport ...... 37 3 Safer and Inclusive Communities ...... 40
3.1 Road safety ...... 40 Number of road casualties ...... 40 Road casualty rate...... 41 Number of KSIs...... 41 Number of child KSIs ...... 42 3.2 Access to services ...... 42 Proportion of households able to access a hospital/ GP by public transport or walking 43 Proportion of 16-19 year olds able to access FE by public transport or walking (30 mins, 1 hour) ...... 44 Proportion of 16-74 year olds able to access an employment area by public transport or walking (20 mins, 40 mins) ...... 45 Proportion of households with no car or van ...... 46 Index of Multiple Deprivation: access (plus map) ...... 47 Deprivation – Geographical barriers to services ...... 48 4 Health and Quality of Life ...... 50 4.1 Health general ...... 50 Number of people aged 65+ ...... 50 Forecast growth in older age groups ...... 50 Index of Multiple Deprivation ...... 51 4.2 Physical activity ...... 52 % of the resident population who travel to work on foot ...... 52 % of the resident population who travel to work by bicycle ...... 52 Cycle trips ...... 52 4.3 Local Air Quality ...... 56 Health Impacts ...... 56 Air Quality Management Areas ...... 57 4.4 Journey Experience ...... 59 Bus satisfaction ...... 59 Walking and Cycling Satisfaction ...... 60 Highways Maintenance ...... 62 Road Safety ...... 63 Tackling Congestion ...... 64 Rail satisfaction ...... 65 Appendix A: AADF Traffic Count Points ...... 67 Appendix B: Air Quality Management Areas ...... 68
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
1 Executive Summary The evidence base presented in this report indicates a number of key findings and issues, both now and for the future. These include:
There has been a large increase in both in-commuting and out-commuting. In- commuting could continue to increase with much of Luton’s growth planned for delivery outside of its administrative area. Increases in in-commuting, which is skewed towards car use, could result in increases in congestion, air pollution and road traffic accidents, as well as extra demand for long- stay car parking, which already appears to have a shortfall in meeting demand. Traffic has increased in recent years. A report from INRIX (2017) indicates the Luton area is the 4th worst congested town (out of 110) in the UK, with motorists spending about 29 hours/year in gridlock traffic and on average 11% of their total drive time stuck in traffic, costing each driver £1, 143 per annum. There are also low levels of public satisfaction with the level of congestion. A relatively high and increasing proportion of residents walk to work, but a low and decreasing proportion of residents cycle to work. Although there have been recent increases in cycling on key cycle routes, cycle use is very low in Luton, despite the good access to services by bike and the cycleable distances to work. There is clearly scope to increase cycling levels. There is generally good access to a range of services, especially jobs, by non-car modes, with the possible exception of access to further education for 16-19 year olds, which is relatively poor and got worse. The proportion of households without a car is relatively high and increasing, and so it is fortunate that there is good access to services by non-car modes. The forecast increase in the age of the population could further increase the proportion of households without a car, and increase the demand for community transport and the concessionary fares scheme. Carbon dioxide emissions from transport are low in Luton and have decreased on local roads in recent years. A third Air Quality Management Area has been declared in the town centre, with transport being the main source of pollution. Air pollution is a mixture of particles and gases that can have adverse effects on human health. The most primary air pollutants are particulate matter [PM] and nitrogen 1 dioxide [NO2]. PM2.5 particles can be inhaled deep into the lungs and has the highest epidemiological link to health outcomes so is included as an indicator in the Public Health Outcomes Framework. Luton’s fraction of mortality attributable to particulate [PM2.5] air pollution indicator is 6% , 5.3% in England. PM in urban areas typically comes from traffic sources from abrasion of engine components, brakes and tyres and combustion products. Nitrogen dioxide [NO2] largest source approximately 80% is from emissions from diesel vehicles. Casualties from road traffic accidents have increased in the town, and there is a high and increasing casualty rate. There is a disproportionately high number of pedestrian
1 http://www.adph.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6.3091_DEFRA_AirQualityGuide_9web.pdf
4
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
casualties, including children. Road safety is considered by residents to be the most important transport issue, with slightly low levels of public satisfaction. Results from the annual National Highways and Transportation Public Satisfaction Survey (NHT survey), show low levels of public satisfaction with the maintenance and condition of the highway is a key issue, especially regarding obstructions on roads and pavements.
5
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
2 Supporting a healthy environment 2.1 Connectivity
Road and passenger transport Luton is just 30 miles north of central London. Generally, Luton is well connected by road, rail and air. Construction of the first section of the M1 in 1959 resulted in Luton being one of the first towns in the UK to benefit from the new motorway network. The M1, part of Highways England’s Strategic Road Network, connects with Luton at Junctions 10 and 11, to the south and west of the town. The M1 provides access to London and the North. The A6 regional route starts in the town and travels north to Bedford and eventually the North West. The A6 previously extended south to Barnet, though this section has since been re-numbered as the A1081. The A505 regional route provides an east–west connection through Luton, to Hitchin and further east to the A1(M) or East Anglia, and on the west to Dunstable and the A5.
The East Luton Corridor (ELC) Scheme, a series of road improvements along the A1081/A505 between M1 Junction 10A and the entrance to London Luton Airport was completed in 2009 and, more recently the grade-separation of the M1 Junction 10a opened in Spring 2015. Later this year the Council will commence on a programme of improvements along the Vauxhall Way corridor.
The Luton Town Centre Transport Scheme opened in 2014, which completed the ‘missing link’ of the town centre ring road, serving proposed residential and mixed use development in the east of the town centre. This involved:
construction of a new road between Old Bedford Road and Hitchin Road running adjacent to the railway improvements to Crescent Road the dualling of Crawley Green Road over the railway a new access road from Gillam Street to serve Midland Road changes to traffic circulation on the north side of the town centre.
Other schemes being investigated include the Luton Northern Bypass between the M1 and the A6, currently being promoted by Central Bedfordshire Council in order to facilitate new homes north of Luton, and they are also working with Luton and Hertfordshire County Council with regard to further improvements in the A505 corridor.
Luton is served by three railway stations; Luton Central, Luton Airport Parkway, and Leagrave, which are all on the same line. The high frequency Thameslink route services run north to Bedford and south to Brighton and other destinations in Kent/Sussex via several central London stations. When complete later this year, the Thameslink Programme will provide further links southwards to Guildford, East Grinstead, Ashford, Dartford, as well as interchange with Crossrail at Farringdon. East Midlands Mainline ‘intercity’ services run north to Leicester, Nottingham, Lincoln, Sheffield and Leeds and other cities, and south to London St Pancras International. London is as little as around 20 minutes away by train, and is served by very frequent services. Luton Central also has good rail-bus interchange with local bus services including the new Luton-Dunstable busway services and National Express coach
6
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020) services.
Although the M1 and the Midland Main Line railway sever most of Luton from Dunstable and Houghton Regis in Central Bedfordshire, with limited crossing points, they are nevertheless in effect one urbanised area. The Luton Dunstable guided busway was opened in September 2013, providing an important connection within the conurbation between Luton and Dunstable. The busway also provides a good, quick and frequent connection between the station and the airport.
London Luton Airport Limited have been planning a Direct Air to Rail Transit (Luton DART) system which will transport passengers between Luton Airport Parkway station and London Luton Airport. Funded by the airport owner, work has started on the ground and it is due to open April 2021. Currently, shuttle buses transport passengers between Parkway station and the airport. The reliability and journey time of the bus service can be affected by traffic congestion, which is difficult to predict in advance. These issues can lead to stressful and delayed journeys to the airport.
International networks – Luton Airport As mentioned, Luton is home to London Luton Airport, one of the major feeder airports for London and the southeast. Luton Airport is 2 miles (3.2 km) from Junction 10 on the M1, and 1.7 miles (2.8km) from the town centre. It is the fourth-largest airport serving the London area, after Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and is one of London's six international airports along with London City Airport and London Southend Airport. The airport is a hub for EasyJet, Monarch Airlines, Thomson Airways and Ryanair.
In 2017, almost 16 million passengers passed through the airport2, an increase from 14.6 million in 2016 and a new record total for Luton making it the fifth busiest airport in the UK, and accounting for around 5% of passengers from the five busiest airports3. The airport serves cities across the UK and key international destinations such as Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
As for the purpose of the trips made from London Luton Airport, Figure 1 shows that the trips are less likely to be for a holiday compared to Gatwick, and more likely to be for visiting friends or family.
Figure 1: Purpose of airport trips (2018) Purpose Luton Gatwick Holiday 36% 53% Visiting friends and relatives 50% 31% Business 12% 14% Other 2% 2% Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb02
2 Source – UK Civil Aviation Authority. http://www.caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis/UK-aviation- market/Airports/Datasets/ 3 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb02
7
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Luton Airport is very close to Luton itself and is very accessible. The airport terminal is situated approximately 1 mile from Luton Airport Parkway station. A shuttle bus service links the station and the airport. Coach operators offer services from London Luton Airport to London, Milton Keynes and the North of England. The previous section outlines improvements in relation to airport access, such as the role of the busway.
34% of passengers travelled in 2018 to London Luton Airport by passenger transport. This compares with half of passengers at Stansted, 44% at Gatwick, and 40% at Heathrow. So Luton has the higher private transport mode share out of these airports.
Figure 2: Modes of transport to the airport (2018 - %)
Mode Luton Gatwick Heathrow Stansted
Private Car 46 37 25 36 Hire Car 2 2 2 2 Taxi/Minicab 18 17 33 11 Rail 18 38 8 31 Bus/Coach 16 6 12 19 Tram/Tube 0 0 20 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Source: TSGB0207 (AVI0107): Mode of transport to the airport
Other towns (time by public transport, number of changes) Luton has very good rail accessibility in terms of access to rail and the number of trains per hour. There is a high frequency and short connection to London for example. However, if access to neighbouring towns is examined, the picture changes remarkably.
Luton is surrounded by medium sized towns, a number of which are close, being around 30km or less away, such as Bedford, St Albans, Stevenage, Welwyn/Hatfield, and Hemel Hempstead. However, Luton has rail access to only two of its neighbours in less than 60 minutes; Bedford and St Albans. Although public transport accessibility improves if bus services are considered, this is very marginal with Hemel Hempstead being the only additional town under one hour away.
8
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 3: Public transport connectivity to nearby towns (green indicates whether train or bus is best option) Train Bus Destination Frequency Travel time Frequency Travel time (approx.) (approx.) and changes St Albans 4/5 tph 14 mins, 0 changes 2 ph 45 mins, 0 changes Bedford 3/4 tph 23 mins, 0 changes 1 ph 1 hr , 0 changes Stevenage 2/4 tph 1 hr 09 mins, 2 4 ph 1 hr, 0 changes changes Hemel 1 tph 1 hr 28 mins, 2 3/4 ph 45 mins to over Hempstead changes one hour, 0 or 1 change. Other mixed options using train and underground, no impact on travel time. Welwyn GC 3/4 tph 1 hr 18 mins, 2 3 ph 1 hr 30 mins, 1 changes change. Other options using train, no impact on travel time Milton Keynes 2 tph 2 hr 9 mins, 2 3 ph 1 hr, 1 change. changes 1hr-1.5hrs no changes Watford 3 tph 1 hr 15 mins, 2 3 ph 1 hr 35 mins, 0 changes change. Other options using train, reducing time to 1 hr and 15 mins. Aylesbury 3 tph 2 hrs 20 mins, 2 3 ph 1 hr 40 mins, 1 or changes 2 changes. Other longer options using train London for 8 tph 35 mins, 0 changes 3/4 ph 2 hrs comparison Sources: Network Rail Enquiries and www.traveline.info
Dunstable, although a separate town in Central Bedfordshire, is really part of the same conurbation as Luton. Public transport connections have improved significantly with the opening of the Luton Dunstable Busway in 2013. This now provides a 15 minute journey at a high frequency of approximately one bus every eight minutes, and it connects with Luton central station, which is just a 3 or 4 minute walk from the town centre. Other bus services also operate to Dunstable.
9
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
There and back journeys in a day/ half a day to other towns, and workforce within 30 minutes of Luton A reasonable measure of business connectivity and agglomeration is whether trips for a meeting can be made there-and-back in half a day. Employer access to its potential workforce is clearly a critical matter for job creation and job matching, particularly in key business centres, and so commuting times are important to and from neighbouring centres..
The previous section indicates that there-and-back journeys in half a day for businesses are very limited by public transport. This may limit business opportunities between Luton and other economic centres that are nearby. In addition, in terms of labour market catchment for jobs, this is also limited by public transport. In practice, perhaps just London, Dunstable, Bedford and St Albans have good enough public transport connections for business and employment opportunities.
Figure 4: Off-peak drive time and distance from Luton to neighbouring towns Town Distance Off-peak drive time Welwyn GC 21km 30 mins Milton Keynes 36km 35 mins Hemel Hempstead 23km 25 mins Dunstable 8km 10-15 mins Bedford 32km 30-40 mins St Albans 17km 25 mins Stevenage 24km 35 mins Watford 31km 25-30 mins Aylesbury 36km 40 mins Source: Google Maps
Figure 4 shows that there are a number of towns within about a 30 minute drive of Luton, plus the not insubstantial population of the rest of the Luton / Dunstable / Houghton Regis conurbation and surrounding rural settlements. This is a significant workforce catchment. The actual drive times will of course vary enormously depending on traffic conditions.
Bearing in mind the relatively poor public transport access to most of these towns, it is highly likely that most journeys to/from them, whether for commuting or business trips, will be by car, with the obvious exception of Dunstable and perhaps Bedford and St Albans (and parts of London).
Travel times by road do not appear to have changed significantly over recent years, and this is supported by the data in Section 1.5 later.
2.2 Employment and Commuting In this section it has been decided to compare Luton, where appropriate, with Milton Keynes given the similar populations, rail connectivity and relationship with London. Where useful, comparisons have also been made with national data and with earlier data for Luton, such as 2001 Census data.
10
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Workplace of employed resident population The places people are prepared to commute to is influenced by many factors, including the availability of jobs, distance and time, and the connectivity of the transport network. In earlier sections it was shown that connectivity, especially by road, is good. This might be expected to influence commuting patterns.
Figure 5: Residents living in Luton by their place of work Place of work : 2011 census merged local Reside in Luton Reside in Luton authority district 2011 2001 Bedford 1,252 866 Central Bedfordshire (Such as Dunstable) 8,401 7,944 Dacorum (such as Hemel Hempstead) 2,377 1,793 47,254 (including 54,399 (including Luton 6,171 who work 6,027 who work from home) from home) North Hertfordshire 1,282 1,083 St Albans 3,212 2,952 Stevenage 1,106 763 Watford 627 602 Welwyn Hatfield 2,063 892 Aylesbury Vale 340 233 Milton Keynes 1,979 1,489 Hertsmere 421 448 Barnet 502 447 Brent 504 440 Camden 843 670 Hillingdon 285 344 Islington 372 362 Westminster/ City of London 1,783 1,767 Source: Census, 2011
Key points: There is a considerable amount of out-commuting to nearby towns and London boroughs; By far the most common commuting destination for Luton residents, apart from Luton itself, is Central Bedfordshire. This is illustrated clearly in Figure 5. In practice this is
11
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
very likely to be primarily Dunstable and Houghton Regis. Given the drive time and good bus connections, this is not surprising From Figure 5 above, it can been seen that there has been a clear reduction of 13% in the number of Luton’s employed residents actually working in Luton, whilst there has been an increase in out-commuting to nearby towns sampled, such as Milton Keynes, as well as London boroughs.
Out-commuting distance and mode share of these commuting trips The places to which residents of Luton are willing to commute will be strongly influenced by the distance.
Figure 6: Distance Luton residents travel to work Distance travelled to work Luton Milton England Keynes All categories: Distance travelled to work 89,201 127,783 25,162,721 Less than 2km 17,868 (20%) 17,859 (14%) 4,170,138 (16%) 2km to less than 5km 20,564 (23%) 31,324 (24.5%) 4,627,289 (18%) 5km to less than 10km 9,403 (10.5%) 27,041 (20%) 4,364,988 (17%) 10km to less than 20km 9,646 (10.8%) 8,823 (7%) 3,848,064 (15%) 20km to less than 30km 6,117 (7%) 6,106 (4.8%) 1,439,855 (6%) 30km to less than 40km 2,549 (3%) 2,338 (2%) 642,205 (2.5%) 40km to less than 60km (will include London 586,489 (2%) 6,216 (7%) 3,210 (2.5%) for Luton) 60km and over (will include London for MK) 1,842 (2%) 8,819 (7%) 773,984 (3%) Work mainly at or from home 6,171 (7%) 12,488 (9.8%) 2,581,832 (10%) Other 8,825 9,775 Average distance (km) 14.7 15.3 14.9 Source: Census, 2011 Key points: Employed residents of Luton are more likely than those in Milton Keynes or nationally to work very locally, especially less than 2km from home, but also up to 5km. 43% of Luton employed residents travel less than 5km, so suitable for walking or cycling. This is down from 50% in 2001; Despite the closeness of Dunstable, in the category of 5-10km, only a small proportion (10.5%) of Luton residents travel this distance compared to Milton Keynes residents (20%) and those of England (17%). This was before the guided busway which opened in 2013; Luton’s closeness to neighbouring towns influences out-commuting. In terms of working non-locally for Luton employed residents, although only 1 in 5 Luton residents travel longer distances (beyond 20km away), this is an increase from 1 in 6 in 2001,
12
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
and this is a high proportion compared to the national data (13.5%) and compared to Milton Keynes (16.5%), especially considering that Luton is an urban area with sufficient jobs for its resident population (see net commuting data in Section 2.2.5 later); This could reflect the close proximity of, and good road connectivity to, a large number of medium sized settlements surrounding Luton, as well as London. Clearly, many Luton residents are choosing to work over 20km away as those places are relatively easy to access by road, with London easy to access by train; Both Luton and Milton Keynes are influenced by the closeness of London; Luton has a low proportion of residents who work from home; In 2001, 63% of Luton employed residents travelled less than 10km, in 2011 this had fallen to 53.5%, and so residents are commuting further and out of the urban area of Luton/ Dunstable. There has been a commensurate increase in the proportion commuting more than 20km. Figure 7: Method of travel to work Method of Travel to Work Luton Milton Keynes England All categories: Method of travel to work 145,208 181,385 38,881,374 Underground, metro, light rail, tram 293 249 1,027,625 Train 5,295 (6%) 5,613 (4.5%) 1,343,684 (5.3%) Bus, minibus or coach 6,682 (7.5%) 7,192 (5.5%) 1,886,539 (7.5%) Taxi 1,056 1,560 131,465 Motorcycle, scooter or moped 438 661 206,550 Driving a car or van 51,435 (58%) 83,392 (65%) 14,345,882 (57%) Passenger in a car or van 7,615 (8.5%) 8,239 (6.5%) 1,264,553 (5%) Bicycle 1,175 (1.3%) 3,659 (2.9%) 742,675 (3%) On foot 11,840 (13.5%) 9,833 (7.7%) 2,701,453 (10.7%) Not in employment 56,007 53,602 13,718,653 Source: Census, 2011
Key points: Luton employed residents are much more likely to walk than those in either Milton Keynes or England, and this probably relates to working very close to home; The proportion of Luton residents walking to work has increased slightly since 2001; Luton employed residents are much less likely to cycle than those in Milton Keynes or England as a whole, which is perhaps suggestive of fewer commuting mid-distances such as 5-10km; The proportion of Luton residents cycling to work has decreased slightly since 2001; 43% of Luton residents travel less than 5km, which should be comfortable walking or cycling distance, but only around 15% use these modes;
13
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Luton residents are relatively more likely to use the train and bus than those in Milton Keynes, but it is similar to the national figures; Despite having 3 train stations, Luton residents are only slightly more likely to use the train to commute compared to England; Luton employed residents are less likely than those in Milton Keynes to commute in a car (driving or as a passenger), but slightly more likely than those in England as a whole.
It should be noted that the Luton Dunstable guided busway opened in 2013, and so after the 2011 census. This also has a parallel cycle route. This important piece of infrastructure might have resulted in recent changes to the proportion of residents cycling or using public transport for commuting those mid-distances of 5-10km between Luton and Dunstable/ Houghton Regis.
It might have been expected that with three rail stations within Luton, and with the apparent good access to rail within the town, a higher percentage would use the train to commute. However, the rather modest use of the train to commute could well be a function of the issue highlighted elsewhere, in that most nearby destinations are in fact poorly accessible by train.
In-commuting distance and mode share of these commuting trips The previous sections have presented data on commuting trips made by Luton residents, such as to other towns. This starts to provide an idea of out-commuting to work in other places. Many people also commute into Luton for work.
Figure 8 below shows the daytime workplace data, and so is concerned with how far people working in Luton have commuted (including Luton residents and those resident elsewhere). Figure 8: Daytime Workplace Distance travelled to work Luton Milton Keynes All categories: Distance travelled to work 145,961 197,600 Less than 2km 17,738 (20%) 17,885 (12.5%) 2km to less than 5km 21,071 (23%) 31,530 (22%) 5km to less than 10km 10,430 (11.5%) 28,280 (19.5%) 10km to less than 20km 8,801 (9.8%) 15,776 (11%) 20km to less than 30km 4,619 (5%) 13,151 (9%) 30km to less than 40km 2,720 (3%) 4,509 (3%) 40km to less than 60km 2,678 (3%) 3,612 (2.5%) 60km and over 7,073 (7.7%) 7,321 (5%) Work mainly at or from home 6,171 12,488 No fixed place 8,653 9,446 Not in employment 56,007 53,602 Total distance (km) 1,645,528.4 2,081,540.2 Average distance (km) 21.9 17.1
14
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Source: Census, 2011
Key points: 43% of the workplace population commutes less than 5km. These are those who live and work in Luton by and large; Almost 19% of the Luton workplace population commute more than 20km into Luton, clearly indicative of in-commuting a long distance from outside the urban area. This is balanced by the same proportion of Luton residents that commute this distance out of Luton. It is also similar to the proportion of the Milton Keynes workplace population that commutes this longer distance into Milton Keynes; 21% of Luton’s workplace population commute a middle distance of 5-20km into Luton, which is about the proportion of Luton residents who commute out for this middle distance. As with the out-commute for this mid-distance, the figure is less than for Milton Keynes, which is almost 30%; A smaller proportion commute 40-60km into Luton than commute out over this distance, suggesting that the London relationship is mainly one way – into London; A much larger proportion of people commute more than 60km into Luton (7.7%) than commute out over this distance (2%). This could be from origins such as, unexpectedly, Nottingham.
Figure 9: Method of travel to work for workplace population 2011 Method of travel to work Luton Milton Keynes
All categories: Method of travel to work 89,954 143,998 Work mainly at or from home 6,171 12,488 Underground, metro, light rail or tram 317 237 Train 2,571 (3%) 2,633 (2%) Bus, minibus or coach 6,022 (6.5%) 7,247 (5%) Taxi 900 1,435 Motorcycle, scooter or moped 463 766 Driving a car or van 54,775 (61%) 96,772 (67%) Passenger in a car or van 5,791 (6.5%) 9,095 (6.5%) Bicycle 1,247 (1.4%) 3,625 On foot 11,205 (12.5%) 9,222 Other method of travel to work 492 478 Source: Census, 2011
Key points: Car use (either as a driver or passenger) is high for the employed daytime population in Luton. The actual number of people driving has increased by 6% since 2001. At 67.5 % of mode share, though, it is slightly lower than the 68.8% in 2001. This will include those commuting in as well as Luton residents who also work in Luton;
15
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
The increasing number of commuters working in Luton who drive will add to the pressure on car parking demand; At 67.5%, the proportion of the workplace population who commute by car is lower than that for Milton Keynes at 73.5%; The use of public transport by the workplace population is more popular in Luton than Milton Keynes. However, the actual number using the bus has gone down slightly since 2001 whilst the number using the train (and mode share) has almost doubled since 2001; The train is a more popular method of travel to work for those living in Luton rather than for those working in Luton, so it is more popular for out-commuting rather more than in-commuting, whereas the use of the bus is similar and perhaps reflects that the bus is mainly used within Luton; The number of people walking to their jobs in Luton has increased by 19% since 2001, and the mode share has also increased from 11.2% to 12.5%; By contrast, the number cycling has gone down, as has the mode share for cycling, down from 1.7% in 2001 to 1.4%; The Local Plan is planning for a balance of jobs and housing in the area, which should in theory reduce in and out-commuting, and indeed jobs and housing appear very well balanced. However, the analysis suggests that this might not reduce out-commuting as people are prepared to travel for the job they want. In addition, in-commuting, which has increased significantly from 2001 to 2011, is likely to increase in the future of much of the planned growth is likely to be delivered outside of the borough council area.
Residence of the workplace population Figure 10 below provides an indication of the main origins for Luton’s workforce, being those places where at least 300 commuted into Luton from each origin either in 2011 or 2001. Figure 10: Luton as a workplace by place of residence 2011 Area of workplace
Area of residence Luton Luton 2001 2011 Aylesbury Vale 585 531 Milton Keynes 1,374 1,469 Bedford 1,888 1,682 Central Bedfordshire (Dunstable) 13,407 12,780 Dacorum (Hemel Hempstead) 863 1,027 Luton (including working from home) 54,399 41,083 North Hertfordshire 1,687 1,721 St Albans 1,672 1,819
16
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Stevenage 490 510 Watford 238 329 Welwyn Hatfield 342 362 Northampton 320 276 Barnet 270 376 Nottingham 18 461 Column Total 77,553 64,426 Source: Census, 2011
For 2001, 77,553 is not far short of the total workplace population of 83,916 (92%). From this we can conclude that the in-commuters in 2001 were largely focused on the above towns and London Boroughs. For 2011, 64,426 is a long way short of the 89,954 total workplace population in 2011. This suggests that the in-commuting in 2011 was much more dispersed across in particular the East of England, East Midlands, South East, and London boroughs.
It can be seen that the main change since 2001 is the drop in the number of Luton residents who also work in Luton. The changes in the figures between 2001 and 2011 are more modest for other towns/boroughs nearby although they generally show an increase in commuting into Luton. Given these modest changes from the main origins, it is likely that the large increase in in-commuting since 2001 is due to people commuting from a dispersed area, which is more difficult to accommodate by public transport improvements.
Net in/out commuting population The above analysis has started to indicate the degree to which people of working age either work locally and the degree to which there is out-commuting as well as in-commuting to Luton. Comparing the census information for those people that live or work in a particular area enables the balance between in and out commuting to be determined.
Figure 11: Workplace population and employed resident population 2011 2011 Local authority Workplace Employed resident
Luton 89,954 89,201
Milton Keynes 143,998 127,783 Source: Census, 2011
Figure 11 above shows the workplace population, which is the total working in Luton, is roughly the same as the total number of employed Luton residents. This suggests that any in- commuting and out-commuting is reasonably balanced. Milton Keynes by contrast, has more jobs than employed residents, and so this indicates it has some net in-commuting.
17
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 12: Net commuting flows in Luton 2011 2001 All people aged 16 to 74 89,954 83,916 working in Luton All employed Luton 89,201 82,362 residents aged 16-74 Net commuting flows +753 +1,554 Source: Census, 2011
Figure 12 shows the net commuting flow for Luton, which has net in-commuting though it is fairly balanced and closer than in 2001.
Although Luton has a small net in-commuting figure of 753, this disguises the enormous flows of out-commuting and in-commuting. 41,083 live in Luton and have their place of work in Luton, and 6,171 Luton residents work mainly at or from home, which is 47,254 in total. There are 89,201 Luton residents (aged 16-74) who are employed. This suggests that around 41,954 commute out of Luton. In 2001, 54,399 Luton residents worked in Luton, including those working from home. As there were 82,362 employed Luton residents, this means that 28,000 commuted out. So there has been a big increase in out-commuting since 2001. 47% of Luton employed residents commute out, and there has been a 50% increase in out-commuters.
A similar number in-commute, because the workplace population is almost 90,000 but only 47,254 will be residents of Luton, meaning that around 42,000 live elsewhere. This is an increase from 29,500 in 2001. 47% of the Luton workforce commute into Luton, and there has been a 42% increase in the number of in-commuters.
Car parking In 1997 Luton Borough Council introduced the first Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the town centre and the approaches to the central area. Two years later Luton was designated a Special Parking Area, and the Council took over enforcement of parking in the town.
Town Centre There are a total of approximately 4000 public off-street car parking spaces in and around the town centre, and a similar proportion of Private Non Residential (PNR) spaces. The Council controls a total of eleven car parks in the central area CPZ. Five of these are smaller off-street public car parks serving the adjacent neighbourhood shopping areas in Bury Park and High Town.
Four of these Council-owned public off-street car parks in the town centre, account for about 23% of all spaces, together with two other car parks about 250 metres outside the inner ring road, at South Road and Hitchin Road.
The most popular car parks serve The Mall (about 43% of provision) and are controlled by its owner, Capital & Regional. In addition to the multi-storey car park serving Luton Station, the other privately owned car parks serving the town centre are the Regent Street multi-storey car park and a surface car park on the Old Courthouse site, operated by Britannia and NCP respectively. The capacity and minimum/maximum usage of the public town centre car parks is summarised in the following figure.
18
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 13: Off-street public car parking in and around Luton Town Centre. Car park General Disabled Electric Reserved M’cycle Total Ave Max Use bays bays bays bays bays bays use use (Sat) (M-F) (M-F) Brunswick 32 0 0 7 0 39 17 25 13 St Burr St 10 2 0 0 0 12 10 10 6 Bute St 240 11 0 0 1 252 151 189 240 Chapel 59 0 0 0 0 59 33 35 34 Viaduct* Crawley Rd 174 7 0 2 1 184 136 156 76 Hitchin Rd 60 0 0 1 0 61 30 36 15 South Rd 47 4 0 0 0 51 35 37 30 Taylor St 44 0 0 0 0 44 17 29 15 (RingGo) Vicarage St 200 10 2 1 1 214 183 196 44 Wenlock St 50 2 0 0 0 52 35 38 10 Luton - - - - - 729 678 700 station- (Midland Rd) The Mall 1527 83 4 0 9 1623 916 1036 1299 Library Rd 106 6 0 0 0 112 111 112 112 Regent St - - - - - 492 280 309 214 Old Court - - - - - 71 62 63 50 House Total - - - - - 3,995 2,661 2,936 Note: *Spaces available to public only on weekends. Source: Luton Council Parking and Enforcement Plan
There are plans to close a number of these car parks, notably: Taylor Street will be closing when the site is developed for high density housing; Burr Street is due to close and will be replaced by 6no. on-street parking places; Brunswick Street is to be reduced to 20no. spaces after the development of Taylor Street car park; The Old Court House is identified for development in the local plan; and Bute Street is a temporary car park.
The proposed development of these car parks will reduce the availability of town centre public off street parking spaces, from 3936 spaces (Monday-Friday) and 3995 spaces at weekends to 3417 on weekdays and 3478 at weekends.
In this context it is worth noting that a planning application has been approved to convert the Crawley Road surface car park to a multi-storey car park. Power Court is being used as temporary parking until the site is re-developed and is often at capacity which will assist in catering for parking displaced by residential development in the High Town area and during
19
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020) construction of the Crawley Road multi-storey car park. Following consultation in May/ June 2018, the Council Red Routes have been introduced along Airport Way and various roads in the town centre.
The pricing structure for town centre car parks varies according to location, with the car parks closest to The Mall shopping centre priced to encourage parking for visitors to the town centre and shoppers, and discourage all-day parking. Those furthest away, including car parks in High Town are priced to encourage long stay parking.
Figure 14: Pricing structure Car Park <1hr 1-2hrs 2-3hrs 3-4 hrs 4-5 hrs All day Sat Sun Vicarage St £1.20 £1.90 £2.40 £3.00 £4.00 £8.00 £3.00 £1.20 The Mall £1.50 £1.50 £2.00 £3.00 £4.00 £8.00 As M-F £1.00
The tariff for the railway station car park is £6.10 per day (£3.65 after 10 am) and £2.90 at evenings and weekends. Weekly tickets are also available for rail commuters at a cost of £28.30. Luton station car parks are currently heavily used by rail passengers who park their cars all day. There is extensive car parking provision at Luton Airport Parkway station, a new multi-storey car park on Midland Road (replacing previous provision here and on Station Road), and also three car parks serving Leagrave station.
When the town centre CPZ was designated in 1997, a number of roads on the south and west side of the area included on-street Pay and Display parking. These allow a maximum of two hours parking, with charges currently set at a level to encourage short stay parking (60p for 15 minutes, £1.10 for half an hour, £2.40 for an hour and £4.80 for 2 hours duration of stay.
Other car parking There is further large provision of off-street parking for staff and patients within and adjacent to the hospital grounds and staff in Council buildings. Nevertheless, there is still a perceived shortfall of dedicated parking for staff and patients at the hospital and council buildings. Furthermore, there is large-scale car parking at the airport.
Key points: Although there is additional parking availability at the airport and hospital, the available car parking seems unlikely to be adequate to cater for the almost 55,000 (in 2011) of the workplace population who drive to work in Luton. Most of these are likely to be from outside of Luton, but many will be residents of Luton.
As shown in Section 2.2, commuting trips into Luton have increased significantly between 2001 and 2011. Catering for all of these by increasing town centre parking is likely to exacerbate congestion and air pollution, as well as adversely impact on road safety. This does suggest a potential for Park and Ride. Park and Ride sites are being promoted at two Strategic Allocation sites; one at Butterfield and the other on land south of Stockwood Park, both having a likely capacity of around 400-500 spaces. However, these appear to be compensating for a recent loss of town centre car parking rather than providing additional car parking.
20
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
2.3 Housing and population growth
Forecast housing growth There is a need for 17,800 net additional dwellings to support the population growth of Luton over the Local Plan period from 2011 to 2031. The Local Plan will make provision for 8,500 net additional dwellings over the plan period in the Borough. It is worth noting Luton will, therefore, have an unmet housing need of 9,300 dwellings over the plan period. In order to deal with this planned shortfall, the Council plans to work with neighbouring and nearby local authorities under the ‘duty to cooperate' to help ensure delivery of the Borough’s unmet needs in other local authority areas. This is likely to increase further the level of in-commuting and the strain this will place on car parking demand.
Growth areas Over the Local Plan period to 2031, the spatial development strategy is to focus the majority of new development on eight Strategic Allocations in Luton, whilst protecting the remaining Green Belt from development and regenerating Luton Town Centre. The eight Strategic Allocations are: Land South of Stockwood Park London Luton Airport (includes Century Park) Butterfield Green Technology Park Napier Park Power Court (Town Centre) High Town Creative Quarter (Town Centre) Marsh Farm
Forecast population growth The Council’s Business Intelligence team has produced an in-depth analysis of likely forecast population growth to 20374. The results of this study are shown in Figure 15 below. The forecast change from 2017 to 2037, is significant at nearly 17.3%, with the largest percentage increases in the older population of people 65 and up.
Figure 15: Luton Population Projections: 2017-2037
4 Luton Council, Luton Inclusive Growth Commission – Evidence Pack, November 2018.
21
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Transport demand
Traffic Traffic in the UK is currently measured by the Department for Transport, (DfT) in two ways – the number to vehicle kilometres travelled (distance) and the annual average daily traffic flow (volume). In terms of annual vehicle miles (shown in Figures 16 and 17 below), traffic has dropped in Luton between 2009 and 2018 by 5%, compared to 6.5% growth nationally. However, traffic in Luton has increased by 5% in the past five years, compared to 8% nationally during the same time period. This indicates that traffic levels have been increasing at a slower rate in Luton than across Great Britain as a whole.
Figure 16: Total traffic on major roads, in thousand vehicle miles5, from 2009 to 2018 Year Cars & Taxis All Motor Vehicles 2018 4.37E+08 543,102,259.8 2017 4.35E+08 541,047,578.4 2016 4.29E+08 527,878,747.3 2015 4.22E+08 520,056,271.3 2014 4.15E+08 508,873,300.3 2013 4.08E+08 496,602,077.7 2012 4.02E+08 490,341,114.3 2011 4.13E+08 505,245,078.1 2010 4.06E+08 497,730,119.9 2009 4.26E+08 516,064,034.9 Data Source: Department for Transport, Road Traffic Surveys 2009 to 2018
Figure 17: Luton Traffic 2009 – 2018 All Motor Vehciles 550000000 540000000 530000000 520000000 510000000 500000000 490000000 480000000 470000000 460000000 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Data Source: Department for Transport, Road Traffic Surveys 2009 to 2018
5 Traffic figures give the total volume of traffic on the stretch of road for the whole year, and are calculated by multiplying the AADF by the corresponding length of road and by the number of days in the years
22
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Annual Average Daily Flows Annual average daily flows (AADF) are measured at 33 count points (shown in Appendix A) within Luton by the DfT. The latest AADF for the measured roads in Luton are shown in Figure 19 overleaf and show total AADF to be 852,905 vehicles. Figure 18 outlines the proportion each vehicle type contribution toward the total and shows that the vast majority of movements – 80% - is from cars.
Figure 18: AADF by vehicle type, 2018
0% 0%
6.1% 1% 13% Cycles Motorcycles Cars & Taxis Buses/Coaches 80% LGVs HGVs
23
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 19: 2018 annual average daily traffic flow on major roads, number of vehicles, Road Cycles Motorbikes Cars & Taxis Buses & Coaches LGVs HGVs TOTAL A6 119 92 15613 186 1903 254 18048 A1081 9 162 43212 279 4939 1629 50221 A505 22 106 17647 41 2341 445 20580 A505 14 131 19832 21 2620 236 22839 A505 74 143 23703 99 3091 550 27586 A6 73 72 14430 84 1484 232 16302 A505 20 208 29700 84 4944 486 35421 A6 22 111 21704 410 3067 322 25614 A6 17 137 24763 77 3812 575 29364 M1 0 355 102370 518 23067 22173 148484 A505 105 88 19561 225 3281 1304 24459 A505 4 97 20996 191 2690 333 24306 M1 0 415 94096 385 20588 18226 133709 A505 67 116 22223 159 3089 552 26139 A1081 69 130 21569 90 2813 500 25103 A505 4 88 19106 174 2448 303 22118 A505 3 99 20083 134 3184 643 24142 A505 46 82 19353 354 3852 1140 24780 A505 27 37 5895 207 691 74 6904 A505 57 137 17792 47 2629 362 20967 A505 34 27 5016 156 743 75 6017 A1081 25 16 14027 379 1142 234 15798 A1081 27 33 13721 926 1523 52 16254 A1081 9 106 12452 146 1601 265 14572 A1081 5 31 4851 51 550 50 5532 A1081 0 28 6751 47 1423 216 8464 A6 85 47 9863 101 1116 174 11302 A5228 122 65 10491 257 1608 306 12726 A5228 66 75 15105 40 2128 287 17635 C 8 11 1173 40 125 4 1353 C 57 44 7781 115 534 22 8496 U 52 7 978 3 145 9 1142 U 1 4 682 0 44 2 732 U 0 7 226 2 66 0 301 U 23 0 639 10 82 1 732 U 5 0 522 0 79 1 602 U 1 0 299 0 17 3 319 U 23 4 412 0 43 5 464 U 6 0 133 0 37 1 171 U 24 3 338 32 39 5 416 U 20 4 1212 4 173 11 1404 U 11 2 1300 0 82 3 1387 TOTAL 1,356 3,320 681,620 6,074 10,9833 52,065 852,905
24
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Heavy Goods Vehicles and Freight Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) currently account for 6.1% of traffic counts in Luton. This proportion has remained largely unchanged in the past 10 years, with HGVs accounting for 6.3% of traffic at its peak in 2012 and 5.7% at its low point in 2009 over the past 10 years.
HGV flows (i.e. the number of HGVs in relation to the total number of vehicles) are by far the highest along the M1, with AADF count points on the M1 indicating that HGVs account for 13- 15% of all vehicles at these points, compared to 1-5% elsewhere in Luton. Overall, HGVs account for 6.1% of the total number of vehicle movements (AADF).
Freight also arrives in Luton by rail and by air. Although up to date rail freight data is not currently available, the Airport has facilities for receiving standard freight such as carrier parcels and is a Defra/EU Border Inspection Post for livestock movements.6 The amount of freight handled by London Luton Airport increased by 12.3% in the past 12 months (June 2019 to May 2020) to 36,686 tonnes.7
Traffic growth forecasts Traffic is likely to continue to grow as a result of new development within the Luton and the southern Central Bedfordshire area. A multi-modal transport model, the Central Bedfordshire and Luton Transport Model was developed in 2016, and has been used to undertake traffic modelling for the Central Bedfordshire Council’s new Local Plan, which also includes information on traffic growth planned for in the Luton Local Plan, using 2025 and 2035 reference cases.
In considering the results, the 2035 reference case was used in this report, as this year aligns more closely with the LTP4 time frame. As shown in Figure 20 below, the results of this work indicate that by 2035, the southern part of the M1 will be nearing capacity for southbound flows in the AM, as well as the more eastern part of the A1081 and the A6 at the northern Luton boundary with Central Bedfordshire. In the PM peak time, capacity is above 95% on the A1081 in the north-eastern direction and the whole of the M1 in Luton heading north is at 85- 95% capacity.
When adding the growth being planned for in the Central Bedfordshire, both the AM and PM situations remain largely unchanged, as shown in Figure 21.
6 Luton Borough Council, Draft Freight Strategy, 2008 7 https://www.london-luton.co.uk/corporate/lla-publications/statistics, May 2020
25
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 20: Figure 3.4: Link stress and Junction delays, 2035 Reference Case, AM & PM
Source: AECOM, Central Bedfordshire Council Local Plan (2015-2035) Transport Modelling Stage1C & 1D, January 2018.
26
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 21: Link stress and Junction delays, 2035 Local Plan, AM & PM
Source: AECOM, Central Bedfordshire Council Local Plan (2015-2035) Transport Modelling Stage1C & 1D, January 2018.
27
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Car ownership, average number of vehicles (cars or vans) per household Travel choices are strongly influenced by access to a car or van.
Figure 22: Car/ van availability % of households - 2011 Luton Milton England Cars/ vans in household Keynes No cars or vans in household 27.4 18.9 25.8 1 car or van in household 44.3 43.2 42.2 2 cars or vans in household 22.2 29.8 24.7 3 cars or vans in household 4.6 6.1 5.5 4 or more cars or vans in household 1.4 1.9 1.9 Source: Census, 2011
Key points: Higher proportion of households without a car or van in Luton compared to Milton Keynes and nationally; Compared to 2001, there has been a slight increase in the proportion of Luton households with no car, in contrast to Milton Keynes and nationally where there have been decreases; There is a lower proportion of households with two or more cars in Luton compared to Milton Keynes and nationally, although this has increased slightly since 2001 in Luton; The relatively low car ownership in Luton could: o Be related to why Luton has more car passengers (rather than drivers) for the commute compared to Milton Keynes and nationally; o Create an issue for accessibility to job opportunities; o Be related to higher proportion of Luton residents walking to work and travelling short distances for work.
Figure 23: Car/ van availability % of households- 2001
Cars/ vans in household Luton Milton Keynes England No cars or vans in household 26.4 19.2 26.8 1 car or van in household 46.3 44.5 43.7 2 cars or vans in household 22.3 29.3 23.6 3 cars or vans in household 4.0 5.5 4.5 4 or more cars or vans in household 1.0 1.5 1.4 Source: Census, 2001
28
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Public transport patronage (number of rail passenger journeys, number of bus passenger journeys The Luton area is served by a comprehensive network of local bus and inter-urban bus and coach services, as well as having three train stations. In 2013, the Luton Dunstable Busway was opened; a guided busway following the route of the long disused Luton & Dunstable train line. The NHT satisfaction surveys, set out in more detail later, finds generally good levels of satisfaction with passenger transport in Luton. The planned growth will however put further pressure on Luton’s public transport network, although this also represents an opportunity.
Figure 24: Public transport as a means of travelling to work - 2011
Method of Travel to Work Luton Milton Keynes England
All categories: Method of travel to work 145,208 181,385 38,881,374
Underground, metro, light rail, tram 293 249 1,027,625
Train 5,295 (6%) 5,613 (4.5%) 1,343,684 (5.5%)
Bus, minibus or coach 6,682 (7.5%) 7,192 (5.5%) 1,886,539 (7.5%)
Not in employment 56,007 53,602 13,718,653
Source: Census, 2011
Figure 25: Public transport as a means of travelling to work - 2001
Method of Travel to Work Luton Milton Keynes England
All people aged 16 to 74 in 82,362 100.0 108,075 100.0 22,441,498 100.0 employment
Underground, metro, light rail, tram 166 0.2% 151 0.1% 709,386 3.2%
Train 3,961 4.8% 3,909 3.6% 950,023 4.2%
Bus, minibus or coach 6,451 7.8% 5,118 4.7% 1,685,361 7.5%
Source: Census, 2011
In both 2001 and 2011, bus patronage as a percentage of mode share in Luton is greater than Milton Keynes, but similar to the country in general. The data also indicates that bus patronage numbers for the journey to work has increased modestly in Luton and England, but significantly in Milton Keynes. Despite the modest increase in actual numbers in Luton, mode share actually decreased, suggesting that increases in bus patronage have not kept pace with the increase in commuting trips.
29
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 26: Passenger journeys per head of population Luton Milton Keynes East of England England
2009/10 47.0 33.5 32.8 88.4
2010/11 46.2 36.8 32.7 87.7
2011/12 40.7 35.4 32.3 87.4
2012/13 46.4 35.6 31.4 85.4
2013/14 41.0 37.5 31.9 86.7
2014/15 38.2 37.3 31.0 85.2
2015/16 40.9 38.5 30.0 82.3
2016/17 45.3 36.5 30.7 80.3
2017/18 39.5 37.4 28.3 78.2
2018/19 50.1 31.5 28.5 77.1
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus01-local-bus-passenger-journeys#table- bus0101
The figure above shows that bus use in Luton per head of population has decreased marginally, although there are clear indications that patronage has picked up again and has increased since 2015/16. In the past 10 years, bus use per head has increased by 6.6% in Luton. Conversely, in Milton Keynes, bus patronage per head of population has decreased since 2009/10.
According to the Council, patronage of services using the busway increased steadily since it opened in 2013 up to late 2016, although there are indications that it had steadied off in 2017. This might help to explain the relatively recent improvements in bus patronage per head of population in the town.
In both 2001 and 2011, train patronage is higher as a proportion than both Milton Keynes and England. In terms of changes over time between 2001 and 2011, train use has increased in Luton in both numbers and as a proportion of journeys to work, as it has in Milton Keynes and England.
Recent growth in population has resulted in an increase in rail patronage. Figure 27 shows the stations usage (exits and entries) for the three Luton stations. It shows a steady increase since 2010/11 for Luton and the parkway stations, and also for Leagrave apart from the dip in 2016/17.
30
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 27: Luton rail station usage Luton Luton Airport Leagrave Parkway
2010/11 3,261,278 2,312,120 1,554,446
2011/12 3,440,298 2,429,582 1,686,524
2012/13 3,443,910 2,504,794 1,757,188
2013/14 3,443,450 2,567,224 1,810,120
2014/15 3,548,262 2,754,700 1,894,294
2015/16 3,626,272 3,188,146 1,914,952
2016/17 3,682,794 3,819,812 1,861,912
2017/18 3,696,048 3,965,128 1,868,018
2018/19 3,801,538 4,148,530 1,894,608 Source: Office of Road and Rail, Station Usage Data
In 2017, Luton was ranked 143rd out of 2,560 stations nationally for usage. Of the 3,801,538 users in 2018/19, 100,432 were interchanges (around 2.6%). The figures were similar for Luton Airport Parkway station, which is ranked 132th, and of the 4,148,530 uses, 119,144 were interchanges (around 3%). For completeness, Leagrave is ranked 318th and has no interchange facilities.
Key points:
The use of the bus is more popular in Luton than Milton Keynes, although considerably less popular than in the country at large; Actual bus patronage for the journey to work in Luton increased from 2001 to 2011, and also as a function of population (in recent years); The trend for Milton Keynes on the other hand suggests a general reduction in patronage per head of population, with the data for 2018/19 being the lowest presented; For all, however, there are noticeable annual variations in bus patronage per head from year to year; The largest increase in train use has been at Luton Airport Parkway station, where use has increased 79% since 2010/11, perhaps due in part to jobs growth at the airport and the increase in air passenger numbers. 2.4 Congestion/ over-crowding Congestion and unreliability constrain the UK’s economic growth. For businesses, improving journey reliability will generally have more economic benefit through reducing lost productive time than minor improvements in average journey times, although the potential for reducing journey times may be more significant on some routes. Urban congestion is identified as a major problem, as it can have an adverse impact on the local economy and create uncertainty
31
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020) for businesses, which can be quantified as a cost to the economy of the United Kingdom. A report from INRIX indicates the Luton area is the 4th worst congested town (out of 110) in the UK, with motorists spending about 29 hours/year in gridlock traffic and on average 11% of their total drive time stuck in traffic, costing each driver £1, 143 per annum (INRIX, 2017).
Congestion causes frustration and delay, and has a significant impact upon the local economy and well-being of Luton. More significantly, the environmental impacts of stationary or slow moving traffic is felt in terms of poor air quality, leading to associated health problems. Air pollution is a mixture of particles and gases that can have adverse effects on human health. 8 The most primary air pollutants are particulate matter [PM] and nitrogen dioxide [NO2]. PM2.5 particles can be inhaled deep into the lungs and has the highest epidemiological link to health outcomes so is included as an indicator in the Public Health Outcomes Framework. Luton’s fraction of mortality attributable to particulate [PM2.5] air pollution indicator is 6% , 5.3% in England. PM in urban areas typically comes from traffic sources from abrasion of engine components, brakes and tyres and combustion products. Nitrogen dioxide [NO2] largest source approximately 80% is from emissions from diesel vehicles. Long term exposure acts as a contributory factor affecting mortality with deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Short term exposure can cause respiratory effects such as coughing, wheezing and exacerbations of asthma, shortness of breath, and chronic bronchitis. Emerging evidence is showing links with damage to the central nervous system and the progression of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and developmental outcomes in children such as low birth weight and other chronic conditions such as diabetes.9 Children elderly and unwell are disproportionately affected as are the poor who tend to live closer to busy roads. Congestion also affects the quality of life for residents and visitors by contributing to the general degradation of public spaces.
Delays, forecast congestion, journey reliability on key routes The NHT surveys, set out in more detail later, indicates low levels of satisfaction with congestion in Luton, although reasonable levels of satisfaction with the Council’s own efforts to reduce delays, such as through managing roadworks. Figure 28 below suggests Luton has higher than average delays when compared to national and regional levels.
Figure 28: Average delay on local ‘A’ roads10 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Year Change Luton 60.6 65.4 62.2 61.7 60.2 -0.6% Milton Keynes 26.7 27.0 27.5 29.3 26.4 -1.1% East of England 30.3 31.8 32.7 32.9 30.7 -1.3% England 44.6 45.9 46.9 47.3 44.0 -1.3% Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/travel-time-measures-for-the-strategic-road-network-and- local-a-roads-april-2019-to-march-2020 Key points:
8 http://www.adph.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6.3091_DEFRA_AirQualityGuide_9web.pdf 9 http://www.adph.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6.3091_DEFRA_AirQualityGuide_9web.pdf 10 Delay is calculated by subtracting derived ‘free flow’ travel times from observed travel times for individual road sections. Free flow travel times are calculated using the 85th percentile speed observation for each individual road sections. These are 'capped' at national speed limits. Average delay is calculated by aggregating delay estimates from individual road sections and weighting observations by associated traffic flows so that it is representative of traffic volumes.
32
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
The higher the figure, the greater the delays; Luton has worse delays than both England, the East of England and Milton Keynes; The delays are more than double those in Milton Keynes; England and Milton Keynes show consistent modest annual changes, whilst Luton’s is more varied.
Figure 29: Average speed on local ‘A’ roads (mph) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5-Year Change Luton 21.1 20.4 21.2 20.8 20.7 -1.9% Milton Keynes 34.5 34.5 34.7 34.1 35.2 2.0% East of England 31.3 30.8 30.7 30.5 30.9 -1.3% England 25.5 25.2 25.2 24.9 25.3 -0.8% https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/travel-time-measures-for-the-strategic-road-network-and-local-a- roads-april-2019-to-march-2020
Key points: Using average traffic speeds as a surrogate measure of congestion, average speeds in Luton are lower than England at large, as perhaps would be expected given that many local roads across the country will be rural with higher speeds; However, the speeds in Luton are considerably lower than Milton Keynes, which might be a more reasonable comparison; The average speeds in Luton appear to have remained fairly stable in recent years, as they have for Milton Keynes and England as a whole.
Number of travel plans Each of the three rail stations has a travel plan, which was produced in 2015. Overall the following mode shares were recorded11:
Walking – 38% Cycling – 3.5% Bus/ coach – 10% Car driver – 28% Car passenger – 17%
The car was therefore the most popular mode of transport at 45% of the mode share, with walking second at 38% of mode share.
Other key points are:
Cycling was most popular to Luton Central (7%) and Leagrave (4%); The most popular station to walk to was Leagrave (35%), with Luton central second (31%); The most popular station to use the bus to get to was Luton central (25%) of the bus
11 Rail Passenger Survey, 2013.
33
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
trips, with Luton Airport Parkway second (34%) of the bus trips. This is a reflection that Luton Town train station is a transport interchange offering onward travel by bus, coach and the Busway.
Prior to this, the Council carried out rail passenger surveys between 2009 and 2013, which included a question on the mode of transport used to access the station. For recent years, the mode of travel to Luton station is presented in Figure 30 below. Comparing 2015 with surveys in previous years indicates a 10% increase in people travelling by bus to Luton station compared to a reduction of both 9% for people walking and 2% travelling by car (either driving or as a passenger) to the station.
Figure 30: Mode of travel to Luton Central station 120
100
Walk 80 Car Driver
60 Car passenger Bus/Coach 40 Cycle Other 20
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015
Source: Luton Borough Council
There is clearly potential for increasing the walking and cycling mode share, especially to Luton Central station. There is a population of almost 24,000 (10% of the conurbation’s population) within a 15 minute walk of Luton station, and 100,000 (42%) who could cycle to the station in under 10 minutes together with over 200,000 people living within a 30 minute cycle catchment of Luton station. The three Councils of Luton, Central Bedfordshire and Bedford are currently co-operating in the Sustainable Transport Access to Rail Stations (STARS) programme being funded by the DfT’s Access fund which will aim to take advantage of such good sustainable access to stations.
With regard to Workplace Travel Plans, the council’s business engagement officer has been working closely with key businesses to help them to get a nationally accredited travel plan. These include: University of Bedfordshire Luton & Dunstable hospital Vauxhall Motors London Luton Airport The Mall Youthscape
34
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Of these, only London Luton Airport currently has a formal travel plan as part of its Airport Surface Access Strategy. Notwithstanding that the Luton & Dunstable hospital has a policy of not providing parking for staff living under a certain distance from the hospital, encouraging those that can to walk, cycle or use public transport.
The Council has a number of initiatives including discounted rail and bus tickets and pool bikes. In 2014, the Council introduced a town centre car club, with the cars solely for use by staff on weekdays (8am-6pm) and public use outside these times. The Car Club scheme was expanded and re-launched in April 2018 with 4 electric cars; as shown in Figure 31 below in the first 3 months residents and businesses travelled over 3,500 miles without generating any tail-pipe emissions.
Figure 31: Luton car club usage
A number of School Travel Plans are in place with a view to car modal share for the school run, and increasing the use of more sustainable modes of transport. The results are generally positive, albeit mixed.
Maidenhall Primary for example has seen a reduction of 35% in car modal share in just one year, mainly through a 10% increase in the mode share of walking. Meads Primary has also had a large decrease in car modal share of 22%, this being due to a 28% increase in the mode share of walking and a 77% increase in the mode share of Park and Stride.
Others have seen more marginal or even negative changes. Beechwood Primary for example has achieved an 8% decrease in car modal share, almost entirely due to a shift to Park and Stride. At Surrey Street Primary, car use modal share increased by 14%, with slight reductions in almost all the sustainable options, whilst St Martin De Porres Primary has had a 20% reduction in the mode share of walking and an increase in car modal share.
35
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Bus punctuality The opening of the Luton Dunstable Busway in September 2013 resulted in significant reductions in bus journey times between Luton and Dunstable/Houghton Regis, as shown in Figure 32 below.
Figure 32: Timetabled bus journey times before and after the busway Trip Before After Dunstable centre - Luton centre 30 mins 12 mins Parkside - Dunstable centre 23 mins 13 mins Parkside - Luton centre 40 mins 25 mins Toddington - Luton centre 50 mins 26 mins Dunstable centre – Airport 40 mins 19 mins1 Source: Local bus timetables Note:1 (Excludes 3 minute stop at Luton station)
With the Busway in place, the journey time between the centres of Dunstable and Luton at peak times has more than halved from at least 32 minutes to around 15 minutes. The journey times using the Busway are also a lot more consistent than when buses used the highway network. The Council has been monitoring bus journey time reliability and punctuality, initially by undertaking timing checks at key points and, since September 2013, using data collected by the Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) system.
The information collected for the DfT’s National Indicator on bus journey time punctuality indicates that 67% of buses were on time in 2010/11, 78% in 2011/12 and 74% in 2012/13.
The RTPI system used to monitor bus journey time punctuality since the Busway opened is reliant on the operators tracking services. Figure 32 below shows the proportions of buses running on time, early or late for three groups of services (Busway services, non-Busway services between Luton and Dunstable and other services operating entirely within the Luton- Dunstable area). The three sets of bars are 2013/14 (left-hand), 2014/15 (middle) and 2015/16 (right-hand), and so fairly recent years.
Figure 33: Percentage of buses early, late & on-time 120
100
80
60 Late On-time 40 Early 20
0
Source: Real Time Passenger Information database
36
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
The above indicates that there is perhaps a lower proportion of buses late on the busway, especially compared to ‘other Luton - Dunstable services’. However, the data also suggest that there has also been a slight worsening in the proportion of services running late, especially for ‘other Luton – Dunstable services’. In 2013/14, over 80% of Busway services were running on time, but this has slipped to around 75-80%, which is similar to, though perhaps slightly better than, the other services in Figure 33.
2.5 Reducing CO2 Emissions
CO2 from road transport CO2 is the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the UK and arises predominately from the combustion of fossil fuels.
Each year in September, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) provides estimates of CO2 emissions for local authority areas. This data set provides nationally consistent CO2 emission estimates at local authority and regional levels for the years 2005 and 2018 inclusive and represents the primary emissions from the consumption of fuel or other process activities that emit CO2. This is the data that has been used for this analysis. Figure 34 below outlines the total emissions in Luton for each sector and also the proportional contribution each sector makes to the total.
Figure 34: CO2 Road Transport Emissions Profile, 2018 Sector Kilotonnes % of Transport Emissions % of Total Emissions A Roads 49.2 23% 7% Motorways 37.9 17% 6% Minor Roads 101.7 47% 15% Diesel Railways 5.8 3% 1% Other Transport 22.2 10% 3% Transport Total 216.9 100% 32% Data Source: Defra, Emissions of CO2 for local authority areas, 2018
As can be seen from the table above, transport emissions account for 32% of Luton’s total emissions, with minor roads accounting for 15% of total emissions, and A-roads 7%, both of which should be considered significant source contributions. The M1 provides a smaller contribution at 6%, with other transport and diesel railways contributing a fairly insignificant proportion of Luton’s total CO2 emissions.
As shown in Figure 35 below, Luton’s total transport CO2 emissions have fallen by 6% since 2005, despite a 15.5% increase in population. Total emissions over the same period fell by 37%. Despite remaining the highest transport emissions sub-sector, emissions from minor roads have fallen since 2005, as have emissions from A-roads (Figure 36). Conversely, emissions from motorways have been increasing since 2009, and emissions from other transport sources are also on the rise, albeit slowly. Diesel railway emissions have remained relatively flat and consistent throughout.
37
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 35: Luton’s Total CO2 Transport Emissions 2005 – 2018 235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
195.0
190.0
185.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Figure 36: Luton’s CO2 Transport Emissions 2005 – 2018, by Sub-Category
120.0
100.0
80.0 A-Roads Motorways 60.0 Minor Roads Diesel Railways 40.0 Transport Other
20.0
- 20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018
One of the best ways of comparing CO2 emissions across sectors and between local
38
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020) authorities is by considering per capita emissions by sector. Figure 37 outlines the comparison between Luton, the East of England and the UK as a whole.
Figure 37: Comparison of per capita transport emissions (Kilotonnes per person) Area Road Transport % of Total Per Capita Emissions Luton 1.00 32% EoE 2.30 44% National 1.91 37% Data Source: DECC, Emissions of CO2 for local authority areas, 2018
Overall, DECC’s emissions of CO2 for local authority areas for 2018 show Luton as having comparatively low per capita transport CO2 emissions, as they are 56% lower than regional levels and 48% lower than national levels.
There are a number of electric vehicle charging points in Luton, providing fuelling stations for these low carbon vehicles, as shown in the map below.
Source: https://www.zap-map.com/live/
39
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
3 Safer and Inclusive Communities 3.1 Road safety
Number of road casualties
Figure 38: Total number of casualties, 2010-14 average and recent years to 2016 2010-14 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 average change from 10- 14 avg Luton 614 616 668 743 703 + 15% Milton -28% Keynes 1,034 921 865 809 743 England 176,121 167,557 163,646 155,368 146,445 -17% Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras30-reported-casualties-in-road-accidents
Key points: There has been an increase in Luton, and falls elsewhere; The annual fluctuations in Luton are quite wide, especially the increase between 2016 and 2017; Milton Keynes and the UK have been continually improving.
Figure 39: Numbers of casualties by road user type - 2010-14 average Pedestrians Cyclists Motor Car Bus Van HGV All cycle Child All Child All ages ages Luton 44 115 9 47 42 388 10 8 2 614 MK 20 67 9 59 75 785 13 20 11 1,034 Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras30-reported-casualties-in-road-accidents
Key points: There is clearly an issue with pedestrian casualties for Luton. The population of Luton is around 80% of Milton Keynes. It might be expected that accident casualty comparisons between the two urban areas would reflect this proportion. Luton, however, has more pedestrian and child pedestrian casualties than Milton Keynes. The difference between Milton Keynes and Luton for all casualties has narrowed in 2016 compared to 2010-14. Luton’s casualties were 60% of Milton Keynes, but in 2016 it was 77%, this being more in proportion to the populations; There has been a significant increase in bus casualties in Luton in 2016; Luton has a relatively low number of HGV accidents.
40
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 40: Numbers of casualties by road user type - 2018 Pedestrians Cyclists Motor Car Bus Van HGV All cycle Child All Child All ages ages Luton 4 27 3 10 16 27 0 0 0 80 MK 4 14 0 15 17 37 0 2 0 86 Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras30-reported-casualties-in-road-accidents
Road casualty rate
Figure 41: Casualty rate per billion vehicle miles, 2010-14 average and recent years to 2018 2010-14 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 average change from 10- 14 avg Luton 1,212 1,169 1,234 1,355 1,280 +6% Milton Keynes 694 588 534 495 459 -34% England 667 611 584 550 517 -22% Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras30-reported-casualties-in-road-accidents
The casualty rate, as measured by vehicle miles rather than population, is significantly higher in Luton than Milton Keyes and England, being around 178% higher than Milton Keynes; The casualty rate for Luton has increased on the 2010-14 average. Although marginal, there are falls elsewhere, including a fall of more than a third in Milton Keynes and a quarter nationally.
Number of KSIs The number of people Killed or Seriously Injured has increased, though the increase in Luton has been greater, mainly due to the figures for 2016.
Figure 42: Number of KSIs, 2010-14 average and recent years to 2018 (unadjusted) 2010-14 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 average change from 10- 14 avg Luton 53 58 69 81 80 +50% Milton Keynes 92 89 107 93 86 -7% England 21,283 20,929 22,900 23,825 24,424 +15% Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras30-reported-casualties-in-road-accidents
41
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 43: Numbers of KSIs by road user type - 2010-14 average Pedestrians Cyclists Motor Car Bus Van HGV All cycle Child All Child All ages ages Luton 10 24 1 5 11 12 0 0 0 53 MK 3 18 1 8 21 40 0 1 2 92 Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras30-reported-casualties-in-road-accidents
Key points: Luton has more pedestrian and child pedestrian KSIs than Milton Keynes; Luton has far fewer KSIs who are car occupants, only 30% of KSIs in Milton Keynes between 2010 and 2014. This could reflect much greater vehicle miles in Milton Keynes.
Figure 44: Numbers of KSIs by road user type - 2018 Pedestrians Cyclists Motor Car Bus Van HGV All cycle Child All Child All ages ages Luton 4 27 3 10 16 27 0 0 0 80 MK 4 14 0 15 17 37 0 2 0 86 Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras30-reported-casualties-in-road-accidents
Number of child KSIs There is no real pattern to child KSIs over recent years, but Luton has far more child KSIs than Milton Keynes, despite its lower population.
Figure 45: Child KSIs 2010/14 2015 2016 2017 2018 average Luton 12 12 9 12 9 Milton 7 6 Keynes 6 6 6 Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras30-reported-casualties-in-road-accidents
3.2 Access to services In the NHT surveys, set out in detail later, there are generally high levels of satisfaction with ‘ease of access by non-car modes’, certainly when compared to other areas of satisfaction such as congestion or road safety. However, it was still below the national average. This section looks at access to a range of services by non-car modes.
42
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Proportion of households able to access a hospital/ GP by public transport or walking Figure 46: Access to a GP for all households by non-car modes - 2016 Travel time % users % users Travel time % users % users to nearest within 15 within 30 to nearest within 15 within 30 GP by minutes of minutes of GP by cycle minutes of minutes of PT/walk GP by GP by GP by cycle GP by cycle PT/walk PT/walk Luton 10 mins 84% 100% 9 mins 99% 100% Milton 13 mins 68% 99% 10 mins 95% 98% Keynes Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/journey-times-to-key-services-by-local- authority-jts04
Luton residents, compared to Milton Keynes, have excellent access to GP surgeries by non- car modes, particularly by cycling. However, access by public transport and walking declined significantly between 2016 and 2017.
Figure 47: Access to a GP for all households by non-car modes in Luton – recent changes over time Travel time % users % users Travel time % users % users to nearest within 15 within 30 to nearest within 15 within 30 GP by minutes of minutes of GP by cycle minutes of minutes of PT/walk GP by GP by GP by cycle GP by cycle PT/walk PT/walk 2017 10 mins 84% 100% 9 mins 99% 100% 2016 9 mins 92% 100% 8 mins 100% 100% 2015 9 mins 92% 100% 8 mins 100% 100% 2014 9 mins 92% 100% 8 mins 100% 100% Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/journey-times-to-key-services-by-local- authority-jts04
Figure 48: Access to a hospital for all households by non-car modes - 2017 Travel time % users % users Travel time % users % users to nearest within 15 within 30 to nearest within 15 within 30 hospital by minutes of a minutes of a hospital by minutes of a minutes of a PT/walk hospital by hospital by cycle hospital by hospital by PT/walk PT/walk cycle cycle Luton 33 mins 4% 38% 23 mins 17% 83% Milton 37 mins 3% 30% 28 mins 9% 68% Keynes Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/journey-times-to-key-services-by-local- authority-jts04
Luton residents, compared to Milton Keynes, have reasonable access to a hospital by non-car modes. Again, there is particularly good access by cycle for Luton residents, with most being within 30 minutes. Nevertheless, whichever non-car mode is used, it takes around half an hour on average to reach the hospital, although this disguises that only around 4 in 10 households are within 30 minutes by walking or public transport. There have been no major
43
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020) changes over recent years, although there is an indication that access by walking/public transport has gotten slightly worse.
Figure 49: Access to a hospital for all households by non-car modes in Luton – recent changes over time Travel time % users % users Travel time % users % users to nearest within 15 within 30 to nearest within 15 within 30 hospital by minutes of a minutes of a hospital by minutes of a minutes of a PT/walk hospital by hospital by cycle hospital by hospital by PT/walk PT/walk cycle cycle 2017 33 mins 4% 38% 23 mins 17% 83% 2016 32 mins 5% 39% 23 mins 17% 83% 2015 32 mins 5% 39% 23 mins 17% 84% 2014 33 mins 5% 36% 21 mins 20% 86% Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/journey-times-to-key-services-by-local- authority-jts04
Proportion of 16-19 year olds able to access FE by public transport or walking
Figure 50: Access for 16-19 year olds to Further Education by non-car modes - 2017 Travel time % users % users Travel time % users % users to nearest within 15 within 30 to nearest within 15 within 30 FE college minutes of minutes of FE college minutes of minutes of a by PT/walk FE college FE college by cycle FE college FE college by PT/walk by PT/walk by cycle by cycle Luton 21 mins 17% 92% 14 mins 57% 100% Milton 18 mins 39% 95% 14 mins 74% 95% Keynes Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/journey-times-to-key-services-by-local- authority-jts04
16-19 year old Luton residents, compared to Milton Keynes, have worse access to further education by non-car modes, especially within 15 minutes by walking/ public transport.
Access by cycle in Luton is generally better than walking/ public transport, and being within 30 minutes by cycle is excellent and better than Milton Keynes.
In terms of changes over recent years, there is an indication that access to further education by walking/public transport and by cycle has improved.
44
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 51: Access to Further Education for 16-19 year olds by non-car modes in Luton – recent changes over time Travel time % users % users Travel time % users % users to nearest within 15 within 30 to nearest within 15 within 30 FE college by minutes of minutes of FE college minutes of minutes of PT/walk FE college by FE college by by cycle FE college by FE college by PT/walk PT/walk cycle cycle 2017 21 mins 17% 92% 14 mins 57% 100% 2016 23 mins 14% 86% 15 mins 55% 100% 2015 19 mins 24% 98% 13 mins 71% 100% 2014 20 mins 20% 98% 13 mins 68% 100% Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/journey-times-to-key-services-by-local- authority-jts04
Proportion of 16-74 year olds able to access an employment area by public transport or walking
Figure 52: Access to employment by non-car modes - 2017 Travel time % users % users Travel time % users % users to nearest within 15 within 30 to nearest within 15 within 30 employment minutes of minutes of employment minutes of minutes of centre with employment employment centre with employment employment 100 to 499 centres with centres with 100 to 499 centres with centres with jobs by 100 to 499 100 to 499 jobs by cycle 100 to 499 100 to 499 PT/walk jobs jobs jobs jobs available by available by available by available by PT/walk PT/walk cycle cycle Luton 7 mins 97% 100% 7 mins 100% 100% Milton 8 mins 91% 100% 9 mins 97% 100% Keynes Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/journey-times-to-key-services-by-local- authority-jts04
Luton residents aged 16-74, compared to Milton Keynes, have excellent access to employment opportunities by non-car modes, with particularly good access by cycle. Seems to have gotten slightly better for all non-car modes in Luton over recent years, and remains excellent.
45
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 53: Access to employment by non-car modes in Luton – recent changes over time Travel time % users % users Travel time % users % users to nearest within 15 within 30 to nearest within 15 within 30 employment minutes of minutes of employment minutes of minutes of centre with employment employment centre with employment employment 100 to 499 centres with centres with 100 to 499 centres with centres with jobs by 100 to 499 100 to 499 jobs by cycle 100 to 499 100 to 499 PT/walk jobs jobs jobs jobs available by available by available by available by PT/walk PT/walk cycle cycle 2017 7 mins 97% 100% 7 mins 100% 100% 2016 8 mins 90% 99% 8 mins 100% 100% 2015 7 mins 97% 100% 8 mins 100% 100% 2014 8 mins 95% 100% 8 mins 100% 100% Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/journey-times-to-key-services-by-local- authority-jts04
Proportion of households with no car or van The ability to access services is strongly influenced by whether or not the household has a car or van.
Figure 55: Figure 54: Car/ van availability % - 2011
Cars/ vans in household Luton Milton England Keynes
No cars or vans in household 27.4 18.9 25.8
1 car or van in household 44.3 43.2 42.2
2 cars or vans in household 22.2 29.8 24.7
3 cars or vans in household 4.6 6.1 5.5
4 or more cars or vans in household 1.4 1.9 1.9 Source: Census,2011
Key points: Higher proportion of households without a car or van in Luton compared to Milton Keynes and nationally; Compared to 2001, there has been a slight increase in the proportion of Luton households with no car, in contrast to Milton Keynes and nationally where there have been decreases; There is a lower proportion of households with two or more cars in Luton compared to Milton Keynes and nationally, although this has increased slightly since 2001 in Luton; The relatively low car ownership in Luton could:
46
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
o Be related to why Luton has more car passengers (rather than drivers) for the commute compared to Milton Keynes and nationally; o Create an issue for accessibility to job opportunities; o Be related to higher proportion of Luton residents walking to work and travelling short distances for work. o Relate to ‘Decentralised’ employment hubs such as Wigmore and Butterfield
Figure 56: Car/ van availability % - 2001
Cars/ vans in household Luton Milton Keynes England
No cars or vans in household 26.4 19.2 26.8 1 car or van in household 46.3 44.5 43.7 2 cars or vans in household 22.3 29.3 23.6 3 cars or vans in household 4.0 5.5 4.5 4 or more cars or vans in household 1.0 1.5 1.4 Source: Census,2001
Index of Multiple Deprivation The Index of Multiple Deprivation uses a number of indicators of deprivation to derive an overall aggregate measure of deprivation.
Figure 57: Index of multiple deprivation
Source: http://dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html
47
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
It can be seen that Luton has a number of areas in the 10% most deprived in the country (those areas coloured the darker blue). Indeed, the borough has four Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in the 10% most deprived areas nationally, out of the 121 LSOAs in the borough. As four is only 3.3% of 121, this is less than the 10% that would be expected nationally, and Luton ranks 41 out of all upper tier local authorities (1 is the most deprived) for the proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived 10%. The most deprived LSOA is ranked 1,349 out of 32,844 LSOAs in England; where 1 is the most deprived LSOA. This is within Northwell ward and is shown in Figure 58 below.
Figure 58: Most deprived LSOA in Luton
Source: http://dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html
Although Luton overall is slightly less deprived than the national average, there are a number of pockets of deprivation.
Deprivation – Geographical barriers to services One of the indicators of deprivation used is barriers to housing and services.
Luton ranks 21st out of upper tier local authorities (1 in the most deprived) for the proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived 10% for this measure. This is most likely related to the housing aspect.
Geographical barriers to services is defined as the ease of access to a range of basic services such as a primary school and a high level of deprivation is typically because of the poor availability of key services and the difficulty of accessing them without a car. None of Luton’s 121 LSOAs is in the 10% most deprived nationally, and only six are in the 20% most deprived. This is therefore not a major issue in general for Luton. The most deprived area in terms of geographical barriers to services is It is in the Bramingham ward and can be seen in Figure 59 below, although it is not a location of high multiple deprivation, being in the 20% least deprived.
48
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 59: Luton’s most deprived LSOA for geographical barriers to services
Source: http://dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html
49
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
4 Health and Quality of Life
4.1 Health general
Number of people aged 65+ Luton Milton Keynes England Age Number % Number % Number % All usual residents 203,201 100.0 248,821 100.0 53,012,456 100.0 Age 0 to 4 16,592 8.2 19,908 8.0 3,318,449 6.3 Age 5 to 7 8,809 4.3 10,263 4.1 1,827,610 3.4 Age 8 to 9 5,412 2.7 6,205 2.5 1,145,022 2.2 Age 10 to 14 13,211 6.5 15,805 6.4 3,080,929 5.8 Age 15 2,732 1.3 3,211 1.3 650,826 1.2 Age 16 to 17 5,425 2.7 6,339 2.5 1,314,124 2.5 Age 18 to 19 5,404 2.7 5,170 2.1 1,375,315 2.6 Age 20 to 24 16,621 8.2 14,056 5.6 3,595,321 6.8 Age 25 to 29 18,812 9.3 19,596 7.9 3,650,881 6.9 Age 30 to 44 43,926 21.6 59,548 23.9 10,944,271 20.6 Age 45 to 59 34,030 16.7 48,040 19.3 10,276,902 19.4 Age 60 to 64 8,346 4.1 13,169 5.3 3,172,277 6.0 Age 65 to 74 12,644 6.2 15,467 6.2 4,552,283 8.6 Age 75 to 84 8,440 4.2 8,494 3.4 2,928,118 5.5 Age 85 to 89 1,877 0.9 2,371 1.0 776,311 1.5 Age 90 and over 920 0.5 1,179 0.5 403,817 0.8
Key points 11.8% are aged 65 and over in Luton; There are proportionally fewer in the older age groups of 65+ in Luton compared to England, but more compared to Milton Keynes, the proportion of which is only 11.1%.
Forecast growth in older age groups The population of Luton is projected to increase from 214,700 in 2017 to 251,800 in 2037 - an increase of 17.3% in 20 years. The older population groups are projected to have the highest population percentage increase but all age groups (other than 0-4) are projected to increase. The increase in the 65 to 84 years of age group will be 46.39%, whilst in the 85+ bracket is projected to increase by 81.1%.
Figure 60: Luton Older People Population Projections (2017-2037)
50
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Year 65-84 years of age 85+ years of age 2017 22,800 3,700 2027 27,300 5,000 2037 33,500 6,700 Source: Luton Council, Luton Inclusive Growth Commission – Evidence Pack, November 2018.
The increasingly ageing population will increase demand for community transport and in particular will place greater demands on the public transport concessionary fares scheme.
Index of Multiple Deprivation
Luton has six of its 121 LSOAs in the 10% most deprived nationally for the health domain. Health deprivation is therefore perhaps an issue, but not a major one.
Figure 61: Health deprivation map for Luton
Source: http://dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html
However, the area around Park Town (see Figure 62) is ranked 761 out of 32,844 LSOAs in England; where 1 is the most deprived LSOA. This means that it falls between being in the most deprived 2% nationally on the health domain.
51
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 62: Health deprivation - Park Town
Source: http://dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html
4.2 Physical activity There are a number of general health issues in Luton with could be related to transport or travel choices or physical inactivity. For example, by year 6, 25.9% of Luton children are obese compared to 20.2% nationally.12 Only 10.2% of children are physically active for at least one hour per day seven days a week, which is significantly worse than nationally at 13.9%. 27.1% of adults in Luton are physically inactive, taking less than 30minutes moderate exercise per week, significantly worse than the national percentage.
% of the resident population who travel to work on foot See Section 2.2, which shows that Luton has a relatively high and increasing number and proportion of residents who walk to work.
% of the resident population who travel to work by bicycle See Section 2.2, which shows that Luton has a relatively low and declining number and proportion of people who cycle to work. Only 9.4% of adults do any cycling in Luton at least once per month [significantly worse that the national average of 14.7% of adults, source 2014/15 fingertips data] Cycling less than once a month suggests irregular or no cycling activity. This will allow further insight for cycling and active travel development.
Cycle trips Figure 63 below summarises the east-west cycle movements that took place across the same Motorway screenline before and after the access track alongside the Busway was opened; in addition to the access track it also includes the section of NCN Route 6 which passes under the M1 between Butely Road and Kestrel Way.
12 Public Health England, National Child Measurement Programme, Year 6 Obesity, 2019/20.
52
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 63: Changes in average east-west cycle flows across the M1 screenline 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 NCN6 near Butely Road 91 151 156 126 146 Leagrave High Street n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Dunstable Road (near M1 J11) 25 24 24 47 44 Access track next to Busway 161 188 n/a Hatters Way 30 29 28 26 24 Total 146 204 369 387 214
Source: Manual counts and automatic cycle counters in vicinity of M1 bridges
There has been an increase in cycling across this screenline, with almost a doubling of cycle movements since autumn 2013 when the access track (NCN606) next to the busway opened. For the NCN6, the increase from 2012 to 2016 was 82%, so again almost a doubling.
This does conflict with the earlier evidence that the number of people cycling to work declined between 2001 and 2011, despite the increasing population and number of people working. The distances to work for many people, however, are very cycleable. This is shown in Section 2.2; for example 43% of Luton employed residents commute less than 5km. Furthermore, access to a range of services by cycle is much better than by walking/ public transport, as shown in Section 3.2. The Council is working with Leeds University to gauge the propensity to cycle, and it is expected more will emerge on this shortly.
Datashine is an academic project that uses census data. It has mapped the proportion of people cycling to work in Luton and in Cambridge as a comparator. The results are shown in Figures 65 and 66. Blue/ dark blue indicates a high cycle usage, whilst yellow/ pale yellow indicates very low usage. In Cambridge, cycle usage is high almost everywhere, with the exception of the town centre where distances are more walkable. In contrast, cycle usage is low throughout Luton.
It should be remembered that the Census is now seven years old, and infrastructure has improved since then, such as along the Busway. There are indications that these improvements might be promoting a greater uptake of cycling, but it is likely that cycling remains a low use mode in Luton. There is certainly room for improvement with satisfaction levels pertaining to cycling being on the whole average compared to other authorities, but low compared to other areas of transport in Luton such as ‘ease of access’ and public transport.
53
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 64: Cambridge cycle usage for commuting trips
Source: http://blog.datashine.org.uk/page/2/
54
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 65: Luton cycle usage for commuting trips
Source: http://blog.datashine.org.uk/page/2/
55
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
4.3 Local Air Quality
Health Impacts Air pollution can have a serious effect on people’s health. Exposure to air pollution can have a long-term effect on health, associated in particular with premature mortality due to cardiopulmonary (heart and lung) effects. In the short-term, high pollution episodes can trigger increased admissions to hospital and contribute to the premature death of those people that are more vulnerable to daily changes in levels of air pollutants. Air pollution also has negative impacts on the environment, both in terms of direct effects of pollutants on vegetation, and indirectly through effects on the acid and nutrient status of soils and waters.13
Deaths attributed to air pollution have been falling both nationally and locally with Luton still being higher than the national figure. The proportion of estimated deaths attributed to air pollution fell from 5.6% to 4.7% for England and from 6.4% to 5% for Luton between 2010 14 and 2015 . 6% of mortality in Luton has been modelled to be due to PM2.5.
Particulate Matter (PM) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the primary air pollutants that are 15 most harmful to health. PM2.5 particles can be inhaled deep into the lungs and has the highest epidemiological link to health outcomes so is included as an indicator in the Public Health Outcomes Framework. Luton’s fraction of mortality attributable to particulate [PM2.5] air pollution indicator is 6% , 5.3% in England. PM in urban areas typically comes from traffic sources from abrasion of engine components, brakes and tyres and combustion products.
The largest source of NO2 (approximately 80%) is from emissions from diesel vehicles. Long term exposure acts as a contributory factor affecting mortality with deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Short term exposure can cause respiratory effects such as coughing, wheezing and exacerbations of asthma, shortness of breath, and chronic bronchitis. Emerging evidence is showing links with damage to the central nervous system and the progression of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and developmental outcomes in children such as low birth weight and other chronic conditions such as diabetes.16
PM2.5 has only recently been monitored in the town and at few locations. While the increase in diesel vehicles on the roads has supported a reduction in CO2 emissions it has exacerbated and increased the fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution from 5% in 2015 to 6% in 2016 [England 4.7% to 5.3% respectively]
13 Defra, Air Quality Strategy, 2007 14 Public Health England, Public Health England. Estimating Local Minority Burdens associated with Particulate Air Pollution, 2014. 15 http://www.adph.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6.3091_DEFRA_AirQualityGuide_9web.pdf 16 http://www.adph.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6.3091_DEFRA_AirQualityGuide_9web.pdf
56
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Air Quality Management Areas Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 introduced new responsibilities to both national and local government throughout the UK. These responsibilities include the requirement upon local authorities to periodically review and assess air quality across their areas. Air quality objectives have been set for those air pollutants deemed to be of most concern. Seven of these pollutants are included under the Local Air Quality Management regime and regulations for these were introduced. The national air quality objectives for the pollutants relevant to transport are given in Figure 66.
Figure 66: National Air Pollutant Objectives Pollutant Objective Measured as
Nitrogen Dioxide 200 µg/m3 not to be exceeded 1 hour mean (NO2) more than 18 times a year 40 µg/m3 Annual Mean 50 µg/m3not to be exceeded more 24 hour mean Particles (PM10) than 35 times a year 40 µg/m3 Annual Mean 266 µg/m3 not to be exceeded 15 minute mean more than 35 times a year 1 hour mean Sulphur Dioxide 350 µg/m3 to be exceeded more (SO2) than 24 times a year 24 hour mean 125 µg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 3 times a year 16.25 µg/m3 running annual mean Benzene 5 µg/m3 annual average 1,3-Butadiene 2.25 µg/m3 running annual mean Carbon maximum daily running 10 mg/m3 Monoxide (CO) 8 hour mean 0.5 µg/m3 Annual mean Lead (Pb) 0.25 µg/m3 Annual mean
Luton Borough Council currently has three Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) declared, which are detailed in Figure 67 below, with maps showing the extent of each area in Appendix B.
57
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 67: Current Air Quality Management Areas in Luton AQMA Pollutants Declaration Description and Air Date Quality Objectives AQMA NO2 annual November 24 Residential properties on either side of the No. 1 mean 2003 M1 Motorway, near Junction 11 AQMA NO2 annual March 2005 431 Residential properties on either side of No. 2 mean the M1 Motorway, near Junction 11 AQMA NO2 annual May 2016 An area from Dunstable Road (by Kenilworth No. 3 mean Road) through to Stuart Street & to Chapel Viaduct (by Latimer Road), also includes Telford Way, Castle Street (to Holly Street) and properties on other adjoining roads that are in close proximity.
Source apportionment exercises undertaken indicate that the exceedance in NO2 emissions is attributable to traffic and transport. AQMA Nos. 1 and 2 are both alongside the M1 (as shown in Appendix B), a road over which the Borough Council has no direct control, as motorways are within the Highways England’s remit.
Defra’s Local Air Quality Management website17 provides adjustment factor for projecting future NO2 concentrations at roadside locations for each year up to 2030 for different parts of the UK, and these adjustment factors have been used to forecast future emissions levels at the roadside diffusion tube measurement locations within Luton’s AQMAs. The adjustment factor used to project possible NO2 concentrations in Luton’s AQMAs is that provided for the “rest of the UK with HDV flows less than 10%” (Section 2.4.2) and these results are outlined in Figure 68 below.
Figure 68: Projected NO2 Concentrations in AQMAs
NO2 Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3) (3)
Site 2030 ID 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (Projected)
LN15 28.29 28.11 33 32.33 30.46 31.3 29.8 26 15.07 LN16 34.82 31.35 36 37.46 35.39 36.0 35.3 30 17.39 LN17 39.12 32.64 39 41.22 35.83 39.2 35.9 34 19.71 LN18 26.67 22.78 31 29.59 25.50 28.5 24.4 24 13.91 LN52 NDA 46.00 54 51.57 45.69 49.4 43.0 40 23.19 LN60 NDA NDA NDA NDA 43.00 47.0 39.0 37 21.45 LN61 NDA NDA NDA NDA 42.54 45.4 43.0 38 22.03 LN62 NDA NDA NDA NDA 42.51 45.7 41.0 40 23.19 LN63 NDA NDA NDA NDA 41.13 45.8 41.7 42 24.35 LN64 NDA NDA NDA NDA 32.32 34.1 30.8 28 16.23
17 https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools-monitoring-data/roadside-no2-projection-factor.html
58
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
As can be seen from the table above, it appears that the AQMAs may achieve compliance by 2030. However, the compliance date was 1st January 2010 and the UK is committed to meeting NO2 limits values as soon as possible, so further work needs to be done as soon as possible to get NO2 levels in line with threshold levels as quickly as possible. 4.4 Journey Experience
Background The Council first took part in the National Highways and Transportation (NHT) annual public satisfaction surveys in 2009-10. They started taking part again every year since 2014, at a time when the DfT introduced its incentive funding for highway maintenance, as the Council considered the outcome of those surveys as informing its approach to addressing the issues of satisfaction with various elements of highway maintenance that were a key element of that Incentive Funding
Bus satisfaction Data on satisfaction with local bus services is collected by the annual NHT survey shows that bus satisfaction overall was above average in 2019.
The specific categories are shown in Figure 69 below; however these benchmark indicators were last surveyed in 2016. The main area where people expressed dissatisfaction were with bus fares.
Figure 69: Bus Satisfaction (% satisfied) Question 2009 2010 2014 2015 2016 PTBI 01-Frequency of bus services 61 59 62 67 68 PTBI 02-Number of bus stops 69 67 71 74 76 PTBI 03-The state of bus stops 53 51 65 67 68 PTBI 04-Whether buses arrive on time 54 53 60 59 61 PTBI 05-How easy buses are to get on/off 68 64 71 76 72 PTBI 06-The local bus service overall 59 56 65 67 67 PTBI 07-Bus fares 36 35 40 43 45 PTBI 08-Quality and cleanliness of buses 53 51 62 65 63 PTBI 09-Helpfulness of drivers 59 57 65 66 65 PTBI 10-Personal safety on the bus 58 59 68 68 68 PTBI 11-Personal safety while waiting at bus 53 52 64 61 64 stop PTBI 12-Raised kerbs at bus stops 56 57 65 68 70 PTBI 13-The amount of information 55 53 55 60 62 PTBI 14-The clarity of information 53 53 57 61 62 PTBI 15-The accuracy of information 55 52 57 63 64 PTBI 16-Ease of finding the right information 48 48 53 56 59 PTBI 17-Information about accessible buses 44 44 52 55 60
59
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Question 2009 2010 2014 2015 2016 PTBI 18-Information to help people plan 53 51 57 61 63 journeys PTBI 19-Reliability of Electronic Display Info 61 62 63 PTBI 20-Provision of public transport 52 51 58 60 63 information PTBI 21-Availability of taxis or minicabs 80 79 75 80 77 PTBI 22-Reliability of taxis or minicabs 75 73 71 76 74 PTBI 23-Cost (fares) of taxis or minicabs 48 47 47 51 57 PTBI 24-Availability of Community Transport 57 52 51 57 57 PTBI 25-Community Transport fares 51 51 47 55 56 PTBI 26-Reliability of Community Transport 54 55 52 61 62 Source: NHT, Public Transport Theme Report - Luton
Luton performed very well in terms of satisfaction with community transport services ranking 9th out of 113 local transport authorities, with overall satisfaction levels at 60%.
Walking and Cycling Satisfaction The NHT survey asks a number of questions pertaining to users’ satisfaction with footways and cycle routes in Luton. The results can be used to help the borough Council plan improvements to this infrastructure.
Satisfaction with walking and cycling was slightly below average at 53%, compared with 54% nationally. For the most part, Luton performs quite well under this component compared with national levels, with a few exceptions. In particular, the provision of pavements where needed is below average, as is the cleanliness of pavements, and drop kerb crossing points. The lowest level of satisfaction in this category and worst compared to national levels is the pavements being kept clear of obstructions, which is very low at 33% compared to 43% nationally.
60
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 70: Walking and Cycling Satisfaction (% satisfied) Question 2009 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 WCBI 01-Provision of pavements 68 65 64 67 68 65 62 where needed WCBI 02-Condition of pavements 53 50 50 57 55 55 53 WCBI 03-Cleanliness of pavements 54 49 49 48 50 50 45 WCBI 04-Direction signposts for 58 55 59 60 63 61 59 pedestrians WCBI 05-Provision of safe crossing 59 58 59 63 63 62 60 points WCBI 06-Drop kerb crossing points 62 60 61 60 64 60 58 WCBI 07-Pavements being kept clear 38 32 35 38 39 36 33 of obstruction
Question 2009 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 WCBI 08-Provision of cycle routes 50 53 55 59 59 54 50 where needed WCBI 09-Location of cycle 53 59 58 56 50 routes/lanes WCBI 10-Condition of cycle routes 55 54 57 63 62 58 54 WCBI 11-Cycle crossing facilities at 49 51 52 59 59 55 52 junctions WCBI 12-Cycle parking 38 44 48 56 53 51 49 WCBI 13-Direction signing for cycle 48 49 53 60 60 57 52 routes WCBI 14-Cycle route information e.g. 41 45 48 58 55 51 50 maps WCBI 15-Cycle training (e.g. at 45 47 54 60 60 NA schools) WCBI 16-Cycle facilities at place of 41 47 53 59 54 NA work WCBI 17-Provision of footpaths for 61 61 60 63 65 NA walking/running WCBI 18-Bridleways for horse riding 57 54 58 59 64 NA and/or cycling WCBI 19-Signposting of Rights of Way 53 53 58 60 62 NA WCBI 20-Condition of Rights of Way 55 53 53 58 61 NA WCBI 21-Ease of use by those with 47 45 49 52 55 NA disabilities WCBI 22-Information about Rights of 40 42 50 50 54 NA Way routes WCBI 23-Overgrown footpaths and 44 47 48 NA Bridleways Source: NHT, Public Transport Theme Report - Luton
61
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Highways Maintenance Overall, Luton performs slightly below average at 50% overall satisfaction for highways maintenance, slightly below the 51% national average.
Figure 71 below shows the components of satisfaction which relate to highways maintenance. There are several areas where Luton performs well above average, including the condition of road surfaces, speed and quality of repair and potholes. However, there is room for improvement in the cleanliness of roads, obstructions on pavements and roads and gritting.
62
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 71: Highways Maintenance Satisfaction (% satisfied) Question 2009 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 HMBI 01-Condition of road surfaces 45 33 41 50 50 48 45 HMBI 02-Cleanliness of roads 58 51 53 57 57 55 51 HMBI 03-Condition of road markings 60 55 56 60 62 62 56 HMBI 04-Condition and cleanliness 60 56 57 59 60 61 55 of road signs HMBI 05-Provision of street Lighting 64 66 68 69 63 HMBI 06-Speed of repair to street 60 59 60 62 61 64 59 lights HMBI 07-Speed of repair to 36 28 36 42 41 42 38 damaged roads/pavements HMBI 08-Quality of repair to 42 50 48 46 46 damaged roads/Pavement HMBI 09-Maintenance of highway 54 53 46 54 52 52 51 verges/trees/shrub HMBI 10-Weed killing on pavements 53 51 41 49 44 47 46% and roads HMBI 11-Provision of Drains 54 60 56 58 53 HMBI 12-Keeping drains clear and 53 53 51 56 53 56 50 working HMBI 13- Deals with Potholes and 40 49 45 43 41 damaged roads HMBI 14-Deals with obstructions on 49 43 38 44 42 41 38 pavements HMBI 15-Keeps roads clear of 58 54 54 60 58 56 52 obstructions HMBI 16-Deals with illegally parked 42 38 38 45 40 NA cars HMBI 17-Undertakes cold weather 45 39 51 59 59 59 54 gritting HMBI 18-Provides information on 38 45 48 43 45 Gritting HMBI 19-Cuts back overgrown 52 49 42 50 46 46 44 hedges HMBI 20-Deals with mud on the 55 52 53 54 53 54 52 road HMBI 21-Deals with abandoned cars 52 50 49 53 46 NA HMBI 22-Deals with flooding on 49 54 54 53 50 roads and pavements Source: NHT, Public Transport Theme Report – Luton
Road Safety Overall, Luton performs below average at 52% overall satisfaction for road safety, compared to 55% nationally.
63
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 72 below shows the components of satisfaction which relate to road safety. No areas are performing above average, indicating that there is significant scope for improvement in these areas. However, of particular note is well below average satisfaction with the safety of children walking/cycling to school, speed limits, speed control measures and their location, and road safety training for children.
Figure 72: Road Safety Satisfaction (% satisfied) Question 2009 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 RSBI 01-Speed limits 62 62 63 67 66 63 59 RSBI 02-Speed control measures 45 44 49 57 54 52 49 (e.g. road humps) RSBI 03-Location of speed control 52 58 57 53 50 measures RSBI 04-Safety of walking 62 61 63 65 66 NA RSBI 05-Safety of cycling 50 49 55 56 59 NA RSBI 06-Safety of children walking to 56 51 59 60 60 NA school RSBI 07-Safety of children cycling to 46 43 51 54 53 NA school RSBI 08-Road safety 51 47 56 57 61 52 51 training/education - children RSBI 09-Road safety 51 46 54 56 57 51 50 training/education -motorcycle RSBI 10-Road safety 46 42 50 51 56 51 49 training/education - young drivers RSBI 11-Safety of walking/cycling 57 55
RSBI 12-Safety of children walk/cycle 54 49 to school Source: NHT, Public Transport Theme Report - Luton
Tackling Congestion Overall, satisfaction with efforts to tackle congestion is below average, at 47%, which is only slightly below the national average of 48%. Satisfaction relating to traffic levels and congestion specifically was 39% in 2019, which is well below the average of 43%. However, the benchmarking indicators are all well above average levels, so the overall low satisfaction is somewhat puzzling.
Figure 73 below shows the components of satisfaction which relate to tackling congestion, most of which pertain to road works, all of which were above average in 2019.
64
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Figure 73: Tacking Congestion Satisfaction (% satisfied) Question 2009 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 TCBI 01-Advanced warning of 61 56 64 68 67 67 65 roadworks TCBI 02-Efforts to reduce delays to 50 49 56 60 60 56 55 traffic TCBI 03-Time taken to complete 40 38 49 53 58 51 49 roadworks TCBI 04-Signposting of road 54 50 55 58 63 60 58 diversions TCBI 05-Helplines to find out about 44 38 48 51 54 52 49 roadworks TCBI 06-Efforts to minimise nuisance 45 40 52 54 57 51 55 to residents TCBI 07 The management of 57 60 55 54 roadworks overall TCBI 08-Road signs 68 65 67 69 71 NA TCBI 09-Location of permanent 66 64 66 67 69 NA traffic lights TCBI 10-Waiting time at permanent 57 55 59 59 63 NA traffic lights TCBI 11-Tackling illegal on-street 39 35 39 43 42 NA parking TCBI 12-Restrictions of parking on 46 40 44 48 51 NA busy roads TCBI 13-Good Park and Ride 41 36 43 46 51 NA Schemes TCBI 14-The routes taken by heavy 43 40 44 49 49 NA goods vehicles
Rail satisfaction There are three train stations in Luton – Luton, Leagrave and Luton Airports Parkway. Transport Focus runs regular surveys on rail passengers’ satisfaction covering a number of variables. Although Luton Borough Council is not directly responsible for trains journeys and the stations in Luton, it is important to understand any barriers that may be stopping people from using this mode of transport.
Overall, 86% of people using Luton’s railway stations were satisfied with their journeys. 100% of those using those stations for commuting purposes were satisfied with their journeys. In terms of journey reliability or punctuality (i.e. the train departing/arriving on time), 78% of all users were satisfied, with 79% of commuters satisfied.
In terms of station satisfaction, 68% were satisfied with the Airport Park way Station, with the remaining 32% neutral, meaning no one reported dissatisfaction. At Luton Station only 45% were satisfied, with 46% neutral and 9% dissatisfied. Data was unavailable for Leagrave
65
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020) station.
Not surprisingly, 55% of those using the Airport Parkway station were for leisure purposes, with only 20% commuting. At Luton station, commuters accounted for 36% and business users 37%. Data was unavailable for Leagrave station.
66
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Appendix A: AADF Traffic Count Points
North
South
67
Luton LTP4: Evidence Base (July 2020)
Appendix B: Air Quality Management Areas
AQMA No. 1
AQMA No. 2
AQMA No. 3
Source: Defra, AQMAs interactive map, https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/maps
68