Transport

Background

Attaining a sustainable transport policy is a huge challenge. Excluding air travel, it boils down to getting motorists out of their cars in favour of more environmentally friendly alternatives, or using cars less. Yet private motor cars represent an ideal form of transport - door to door, fast, comfortable, relatively cheap, secure, protected from the elements, "integrated", with ample carrying capacity for companions, luggage or goods. Moreover travel is one of the fastest growing leisure activities. It is widely seen as one of the things to look forward to from greater affluence. Nowadays people think little of driving 50 miles up the motorway to shop, driving 100 miles to meet friends for lunch, or flying to say the USA or Australia for a few days to attend a wedding.

As a party we delude ourselves if we believe there are comprehensive alternatives to the motor car, simple to bring on line with a few tweaks of the legislation here or a few extra charges there. Put starkly, walking and cycling can only substitute for relatively short journeys, and public transport (PT) can only compete at times and in places where there are substantial passenger flows. If we curtail private motor use we will upset the electorate. We must start with reasons which make sense and focus on actions which can at least obtain grudging acceptance.

We wish to limit car use because cars generate CO2, substantial other air pollution, and also noise. Cars take huge areas of land for roads and car parks, break up communities, and endanger life. However, and this is a key point we make, the problems are much worse in urban than rural areas, and it is much easier to find alternatives for urban areas. We can do a great deal about car use in towns and should focus on that first.

Travel in Towns

We suggest a 9 point strategy to reduce car use and pollution in towns.

  1. Extend pedestrianization: It is highly desirable to separate vehicles from people on pollution grounds. This is particularly true in shopping areas but can be true in other situations eg near schools, sports centres and so on. Pedestrianization in shopping areas has proceeded apace and is usually welcomed. Although some types of shop suffer, others gain, and after a few years the majority of traders conclude pedestrianization has been of benefit. More can be done, though we should recognize that as the areas extend, shop mobility schemes need to be financed; and slow moving electrically powered people movers may need to be introduced, cycle lines marked out, and traders allowed special hours to deliver goods. There are many hybrid solutions for pedestrianized areas. Some allow limited bus access or use car parks above or below the pedestrianized areas. All kinds of alternatives can be practical, and all make the air cleaner, and take away the dominance of the private car. We see no reason why huge swathes of central London should not be pedestrianized, because potentially its public transport could be very good.
  2. Make cycling safe. Anyone who has visited mainland European cities eg in Holland and Scandinavia can see the potential for cycle trips to replace the car for short journeys. The 18th Royal Commission report on Environmental Pollution (RC18) which is scientifically sound and worthy of detailed study, believed cycling in the UK could increase 4-fold from 2.5 to 10% of all urban journeys by 2005. It is true cycling is less attractive in rain, wind, and icy conditions, and it is true some cyclists feel they need a shower after a brisk ride, but the number of days cycling is unpleasant are relatively few, and the need for showering, overstated.
    • The major reason why people drive instead of cycle apart from laziness, is safety - especially in the dark and where part of a journey has to be made on a busy road. Cycling will make little progress until LAs provide safe cycle routes. Vulnerability increases as the difference in speed between cyclist and motor vehicle increases; where the road width allowing one to overtake the other decreases; and as the volume of traffic (and therefore the opportunities to see and swing out into the opposite lane) increases. Residential roads are generally safe and need no special provision.
    • Single carriageway roads > 7.5 metres wide can safely accommodate 1 metre wide cycle lanes at the cost of a line of paint. In some cases pavements are lightly used by pedestrians or are wide enough for cyclists to share. Too often, however, roads are not wide enough; or their width is squeezed by pedestrian refuges; or the cycle lanes give out at roundabouts or junctions where cyclists are most vulnerable; or using pavements makes pedestrians uncomfortable or harassed; or the cycle lanes have uneven gullies, or are blocked by parked cars.
    • One problem for LA s is that the width of the "highway" is often fixed by property on either side, and whilst they might like to alter the relative widths of pavement and road, the costs of doing so are high due to the cost of moving kerbs and re-organising the road drainage. We believe that in urban areas LA s need authority to give priority in the following order: pedestrians, cyclists, PT, commercial vehicles, and finally private vehicles. LA s should be required to provide safe cycle routes across their boroughs within 5 years, funded by special D of ETR grants. They should be free to use canal towpaths, parks, as well as roads, but if this means making some major roads one way for cars, or reducing speeds to 20 mph to make cycling safe, so be it.
  3. Give PT priority when it is or could realistically become the better environmental alternative. Public transport works best with high volume traffic corridors. It transports people efficiently into inner cities, and between cities during the working day and especially at rush hours. The higher the volumes the more frequent the service and the less difficulty providing a convenient and integrated service.
    • However, the party must not fall into the trap of thinking public transport is always the best environmental option. A bus with 6 passengers will almost certainly generate more pollution than 3 cars with 2. PTEs working with LAs should agree the routes and times when PT should be the best alternative. PT should have priority on those routes at those times, using bus lanes, bus priority junctions, and bus priority rules of the road. If the full potential of PT is to be achieved, however, it will be necessary to take further measures.
    • In Leicester a trial of 100 motorists using the A47 into the city has found that at £3 a day 10% of motorists switched to PT, and at £6, 14%. Put another way 86% of motorists still used their car even though it costs them over £1000 a year! A computer modelling exercise for London showed that £4/day would cut traffic into the centre by 15% (and would raise £200m/yr). London, with the Tube, has better PT. The impact of these findings are that charges have to be pretty draconian to get motorists out of their cars, and whilst a great deal of revenue could be raised very easily (even at £3/day which traffic engineers think is probably the optimum level), there will be some annoyance, and avoidance.
    • Nevertheless road charging and/or high public and private car park charges will have an effect, raise revenue to subsidise PT, and should be introduced. Another route is to discriminate against lone drivers, by giving lane priority to vehicles with 2+ occupants. These work successfully in the USA and trials are now taking place in Leeds. A third proven option is park and ride. In the Leicester trial 15% switched as soon as it was introduced. There is still potential for more park and ride provision at railway stations and bus termini for cars, motorbikes and cycles, and at motorway junctions as at Oxford. Costs of parking and riding should be subsidised and cost substantially less than travelling by car into town.
    • Edinburgh is employing most of these ideas, and anticipates halting traffic growth by 2000, and reducing car use in the city by 2%/year until 2010. We believe this rate of progress is achievable elsewhere. To assist further, time tabling of PT routes should become a PTE responsibility. Market forces inevitably lead to cherry-picking and attempts to create monopolies or cartels. At present there are no incentives for bus and rail integration, and continued problems with cross ticketing. Let private companies operate bus services, and suggest how route networks should change, but ultimately let them bid to operate timetables, not design them to suit only themselves. (We would do this with the railways as well. It is generally unwise and unfair to ask the private sector do strategic planning because they can not resolve the inevitable conflicts of interest). Additionally, charge for out of town shopping parking, but allow stores to retain some money to subsidise home delivery services.
  4. Tighten vehicle emission standards. A recent study found that something like 50% of pollution was caused by 10% of vehicles. This is an absurd situation, and one that can be solved immediately by an increased input of environmental health inspections under existing legislation, or by increasing the frequency of vehicle exhaust tests to every 6 months. At certain times of poor air quality, there is an excellent case for excluding older vehicles including lorries entering vulnerable parts of the urban area.
  5. Smooth traffic flows. Engine efficiency is high and pollution low when vehicles are driven at constant speeds of say 40-50 mph. They are inefficient when engines are cold (an additional reason why cycling or walking is attractive for short journeys); when travelling slowly, and particularly when stop-starting as is common in urban areas. (This is a problem if humps are used for traffic calming. Trials by Rover over a humped calmed road showed a 10-fold increase in pollution over smooth 30 mph driving. Cameras are by far and away the most environmentally friendly way of controlling speed).
    • Smooth urban driving is frustrated by the grid nature of most urban areas. Every set of traffic lights creates a bottleneck reducing road capacity to less than one third of either road. Roundabouts are more efficient up to moderate flows, but then become as bad when they reach saturation. It is not surprising that recent studies have shown that closing roads, denying right turns, (in other words simplifying the road grid) reduces congestion.
    • "Rat running" allows some motorists to jump queues, but reduces road capacity further. With the agreement of residents many residential through roads can be converted into cul-de-sacs by closure at one point or by installing resident operated barriers, offering both safety and pollution gains.
    • "Intelligent" traffic lights use sensors to measure the proximity, speed and volume of traffic and vary the time each road has on "green". This smooths flows and reduces pollution. Again LA s should be given grants or allowed capital approval to carry out the above measures.
  6. Discourage home to school car journeys. Traffic flows increase about 20% at the beginning and end of the school day. We recognize the problem of multiple journeys, eg where a parent collects a child from school, takes her to ballet classes, nips off to the supermarket while she is there, and collects her afterwards, or simply drops the child off on the way to work. However there are far more cases when both parent and child could walk, and where walking provides useful exercise, a chance for parents to chat to each other and for children to learn about road safety. Educational campaigns should be employed.
  7. Use cleaner fuels in public service vehicles. There is a problem introducing new fuels because garages have limited numbers of tanks, and a Catch-22 situation develops. Garages won't offer a new fuel until the market needs it, and motorists won't opt for a different fuel if they can't buy it all round the country. However it is possible to use cleaner fuels such as natural gas, LPG, and also electric power, in buses, and in LA and other public sector vehicle fleets, because these can operate close to a depot. Government should be prepared to fund trials and conversions.
  8. Extend light rail (metros). Metros represent a very pleasant form of travel. It is true that the Sheffield metro is a financial disaster because Nimbys kept the lines away from their housing and they attract little all-day traffic. However the Manchester and (we believe) the Tyne metro have been bright successes and London would not work without the Tube. Metros are not cheap. The first part of the West Midlands metro cost about £135m, and when handed over for commercial operation was only valued at £9m - in other words the environmental subsidy was huge (£126m). Even so more should be funded.
  9. Reduce the need for travel. PPG 13 provides useful guidance to discriminate against traffic generating developments, such as out of town shopping centres, but it should become standard planning practice (with backing legislation) to analyse how all developments provide for sustainable modes of transport and to reject those likely to generate significant car use. This means favouring local shopping facilities, (even providing subsidy through rate relief) and thinking in terms of "urban villages" with decent shops, post offices, banks, community facilities and entertainment, and so on, which would not only cut travel but be of great benefit for the 30% or so without cars.

Long Distance Transport

As noted above steady driving uses fuel more efficiently and creates substantially less pollution per mile than stop-starting in towns. However efficiency drops off sharply with high speeds. RC18 quotes a typical vehicle using 0.17 litres/km at 100 mph and less than half (0.07l/k) at 45 mph. We would like the 60 and 70 mph motorway limits to be properly enforced to reduce fuel use (RC18 estimates a saving of 3%), noise, and the trauma and cost of accidents. Motorways have hundreds of cheap camera positions, and installation and administration would be financed by fines.

Though it may be politically incorrect to say so, we do not anticipate a substantial movement of freight to rail. Railways are dreadfully inflexibility, and few extensions other than one offs like the Heathrow high speed link should be anticipated. Usually taking freight by rail means 3 separate journeys - to the railhead, on the train, and from the railhead to the destination. The two additional transfers take time and cost money, though these become less significant the longer the rail distance. At one time the break even distance was about 200 miles, but with bigger trucks and better motorways this has increased. Some gains would be made if the rail link from north of Watford to the Chunnel was improved.

Similarly we do not anticipate great increases in cross country rail passengers, though there should be increases in urban areas especially if services improved There may be some potential to increase the tonnage of goods distributed in coastal waters and in the lower reaches of the major rivers like the Severn and Thames, and indeed for more liquids to move by pipeline. However suggestions that more freight can go by inland canals should be dismissed. The argument against canals can be simply put. Their capacity is determined by the locks which restricts capacity to the equivalent of less than 2 juggernauts per hour. Moreover the water required for continuous use would exceed reservoir capacity most summers.

Motorway congestion is worst in the vicinity of urban areas. That is usually because local people use the motorway as a ring road. A study undertaken when the M42 to the East of Birmingham was being considered for widening found that 20% of the journeys were from Solihull to Solihull, 40% from Solihull to elsewhere in the W. Midlands conurbation, and only 40% long distant to the West Midlands or past it. If we improve movement within the urban area, we will help reduce motorway congestion at its worst points. Similarly it is ludicrous, for example, to allow shopping centres on motorway junctions. These generate huge volumes of local traffic.

Congestion is a cost motorists impose on each other, and there is no reason why government should bail them out. However there is a good case for levying tolls to discourage wasteful journeys, and to raise funds to subsidise both short and long distance alternatives. Charges would probably have to be at French levels, about 5p/mile, to be effective. UK motorways have not been constructed with space for toll booths so a high-tech solution will need to be developed. Interestingly if 50% of all motorways were tolled at 5p/ml, more than £2bn/year would be raised.

Fuel Efficiency, Emissions, And Tax

RC18 concluded that it was technically possible for cars to improve their fuel efficiency by 40%, light goods vehicles by 20%, and heavy goods by 10% from 1990 levels by 2005. Similarly the EU is working towards very high standards of emissions in new vehicles. We should note that if fuel efficiency improves the real cost of motoring will reduce instead of increase. It will therefore be necessary to increase fuel duty to sustain a strong price signal both to motorists and manufacturers. RC18 recommends a doubling in fuel price over 10 years, with further rises thereafter. We would support this, and would prefer to exert all the price pressure directly on fuel, rather than use a graduated licence fee. This will give the maximum incentives for careful and thoughtful use of a car. As to the poor rural motorists, they will avoid the charges and restrictions in urban areas, and the tolls on motorways. They can not expect to avoid all restraints.

If the measures suggested above are applied soon we foresee a drop of 10-20% in urban car use by the year 2010, and some moderation of the growth elsewhere. Taken together with improvements in fuel efficiency and emission standards, an overall saving in CO2 and other emissions of 10% over 1990 levels by 2010 seem feasible. This may not be as much as we might wish, but it does represent the first turning down of a curve which has been going relentlessly upward all our lifetimes.

Contents