How can city governments ensure better public health?

A Legible London sign, intended to encouraging walking. Image: Applied Wayfinding.

Crossing the street while texting could cost you your life. If you live in Honolulu, even if you survive, thanks to legislation passed earlier this year, it could also land you a hefty fine.

The Hawaiian capital is not the only city trying to get us to look up from our phone. Hayward, California, introduced snarky signs in 2015, reminding us to “Cross the road, then update Facebook.” Singapore installed LED lights on the pavement at crossings to prevent accidents involving people who don’t look up from their phones. Antwerp in Belgium and Chongqing in China have text-walking lanes, and Mumbai and San Francisco have no-selfie zones, while Rexburg in Idaho banned pedestrians from using phones when crossing the street in 2011.

The increase of urban populations around the world is putting pressure on local governments to tackle the preventable health problems caused by air pollution and lifestyle, and some cities are stepping up to the challenge. In London, for example, TfL’s Planning for the Future is investing billions of pounds to develop the city’s transport and lower emissions. And almost 100 cities have joined the World Health Organisation’s European Healthy Cities Network, which aims to improve public health.

But traditional methods of improving a populations’ health – offering free cooking classes and handing out leaflets on how to stop smoking – aren’t enough any more. In these innovative times, cities are starting to play a more involved role in changing our behaviour. Public health researchers in California, for example, installed signs in San Diego International Airport, to encourage people to take the stairs instead of the escalator, which led to twice as many people opting for the former.

But Theresa M. Marteau, director of the behaviour & health research unit at the University of Cambridge, says that far more radical change is needed. “While information-based approaches to changing behaviour can raise awareness of a need for change,” she says, “they are generally, at best, weak interventions for achieving such change.


“There is no doubt that the design of cities and towns is key to population and planetary health. Re-designing these to reduce or remove the use of fossil-fuelled vehicles and increase walking and cycling is just one such change.”

Susan Claris, a transport planner with the consultancy Arup, agrees that cities need to adjust their infrastructure. “Buildings should be designed so that the stairs are the first thing you see and they are inviting to use.” At the moment, she notes, the lifts or escalator are often the first thing you see, “with the stairs hidden away behind closed doors”.

Such re-designs are important, because cities have the potential to reshape human behaviour. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently published a paper titled, “Persuasive Cities: Health Behavior Change at Scale”. It argued that, “according to social cognitive theory, any well-designed environment can become a strong influences of what people think and do”, concluding: “As cities continue to grow… the design of future urban places will become more dominant in impacting human behaviour.”

The key to this level of change lies not in brand new infrastructure, but in the use of technology, according to Arup’s Claris. “Thanks to new technologies, the physical city is changing,” she says. “With sensors and cloud computing, streets are becoming smarter and more interactive. The city can now monitor and analyse activity levels, actively advocate walking and cycling routes, as well as create a layer of play, fun and games onto the streetscape.”

All this, she says, is enabling cities to play a growing role in public health and wellbeing, “away from the traditional posters, leaflets and other traditional campaigns”. By combining better design and better incentives, cities can make sure that “the healthy choice is the fun, easy, convenient and attractive choice”.

 
 
 
 

“A story of incompetence, arrogance, privilege and power”: A brief history of the Garden Bridge

Ewwww. Image: Heatherwick.

Labour assembly member Tom Copley on a an ignominious history.

The publication last week of the final bill for Boris Johnson’s failed Garden Bridge has once again pushed this fiasco into the headlines.

As well as an eye-watering £43m bill for taxpayers for this Johnsonian indulgence, what has been revealed this week is astonishing profligacy by the arms-length vehicle established to deliver it: the Garden Bridge Trust. The line by line account of their spending reveals £161,000 spent on their website and £400,000 on a gala fundraising event, amongst many other eyebrow raising numbers. 

Bear in mind that back in 2012, Johnson promised that the bridge would be entirely privately funded. The bridge’s most ardent advocate, Joanna Lumley, called it a “tiara for the Thames” and “a gift for London”. Today, the project would seem the very opposite of a “gift”.

The London Assembly has been scrutinising this project since its inception, and I now chair a working group tasked with continuing our investigation. We are indebted to the work of local campaigners around Waterloo as well as Will Hurst of the Architects Journal, who has brought many of the scandals surrounding the project into the open, and who was the subject of an extraordinary public attack by Johnson for doing so.

Yet every revelation about this cursed project has thrown up more questions than it has answers, and it’s worth reminding ourselves just how shady and rotten the story of this project has been.

There was Johnson’s £10,000 taxpayer funded trip to San Francisco to drum up sponsorship for the Thomas Heatherwick garden bridge design, despite the fact that TfL had not at that point even tendered for a designer for the project.

The design contest itself was a sham, with one of the two other architects TfL begged to enter in an attempt to create the illusion of due process later saying they felt “used”. Heatherwick Studios was awarded the contract and made a total of £2.7m from taxpayers from the failed project.


Soon after the bridge’s engineering contract had been awarded to Arup, it was announced that TfL’s then managing director of planning, Richard de Cani, was departing TfL for a new job – at Arup. He continued to make key decisions relating to the project while working his notice period, a flagrant conflict of interest that wouldn’t have been allowed in the civil service. Arup received more than £13m of taxpayer cash from the failed project.

The tendering process attracted such concern that the then Transport Commissioner, Peter Hendy, ordered an internal audit of it. The resulting report was a whitewash, and a far more critical earlier draft was leaked to the London Assembly.

As concerns about the project grew, so did the interventions by the bridge’s powerful advocates to keep it on track. Boris Johnson signed a mayoral direction which watered down the conditions the Garden Bridge Trust had to meet in order to gain access to further public money, exposing taxpayers to further risk. When he was hauled in front of the London Assembly to explain this decision, after blustering for while he finally told me that he couldn’t remember.

David Cameron overruled the advice of senior civil servants in order to extend the project’s government credit line. And George Osborne was at one point even more keen on the Garden Bridge than Johnson himself. The then chancellor was criticised by the National Audit Office for bypassing usual channels in order to commit funding to it. Strangely, none of the project’s travails have made it onto the pages of the London Evening Standard, a paper he now edits. Nor did they under his predecessor Sarah Sands, now editor of the Today Programme, another firm advocate for the Garden Bridge.

By 2016 the project appeared to be in real trouble. Yet the Garden Bridge Trust ploughed ahead in the face of mounting risks. In February 2016, despite having not secured the land on the south bank to actually build the bridge on, nor satisfied all their planning consents, the Trust signed an engineering contract. That decision alone has cost the taxpayer £21m.

Minutes of the Trust’s board meetings that I secured from TfL (after much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Trust itself) reveal that weeks beforehand Thomas Heatherwick had urged the trustees to sign the contract in order to demonstrate “momentum”.

Meanwhile TfL, which was represented at board meetings by Richard de Cani and so should’ve been well aware of the mounting risks to the project, astonishingly failed to act in interests of taxpayers by shutting the project down.

Indeed, TfL allowed further public money to be released for the project despite the Trust not having satisfied at least two of the six conditions that had been set by TfL in order to protect the public purse. The decision to approve funding was personally approved by Transport Commissioner Mike Brown, who has never provided an adequate explanation for his decision.

The story of the Garden Bridge project is one of incompetence, arrogance and recklessness, but also of privilege and power. This was “the great and the good” trying to rig the system to force upon London a plaything for themselves wrapped up as a gift.

The London Assembly is determined to hold those responsible to account, and we will particularly focus on TfL’s role in this mess. However, this is not just a London issue, but a national scandal. There is a growing case for a Parliamentary inquiry into the project, and I would urge the Public Accounts Committee to launch an investigation. 

The Garden Bridge may seem like small beer compared to Brexit. But there is a common thread: Boris Johnson. It should appal and outrage us that this man is still being talked about as a potential future Prime Minister. His most expensive vanity project, now dead in the water, perhaps serves as an unwelcome prophecy for what may be to come should he ever enter Number 10.

Tom Copley is a Labour member of the London Assembly.