How local
authorities can reduce traffic
A Green Party
local elections briefing
April 2003
John
Whitelegg is an independent transport consultant, lecturer in the
School
of the Built Environment at Liverpool John Moores University, and
Chief
Policy Adviser on Transport for the Green Party of England & Wales
Edited by
Spencer Fitz-Gibbon and Grace Gedge
Contact Green
Party press office, 020 7561 0282
Press@greenparty.org.uk
The Green Party's full policy on transport can be found at http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policy/mfss/transprt.html
Contents
Part 1: Identification of
Policies Currently Available to Local Authorities with Potential for Traffic Reduction
p 5
Part 2:
Selected Case Study Material to Illustrate Best Practice in those Policy Areas
p 8
Part 3: Identification of
Policies with Traffic Reduction Potential that Depend on Central Government
Changing the Rules p 10
Part 4: Traffic Reduction
for Heavy Goods Vehicles p 12
Part 6: A Review of the
Economic Consequences of Traffic Reduction p 15
Conclusion: Achieving
Demanding Targets p 17
Introduction: Examples of
European Best Practice
I.1. There is already a considerable body of experience on achieving significant modal shifts and the associated traffic reduction in European cities and regions. The following examples indicate both what is possible, and the extent to which most of Britain lags behind the world leaders in the field. Even where a British city has provided an example of best practice, other cities have been slow to follow.
a. Lemgo in Germany increased bus usage from 40,000 to over one million in one year. (1)
b. Zurich in Switzerland held levels of car ownership and traffic volumes constant for a decade whilst public transit use soared. (1)
c. Houten in the Netherlands developed a comprehensive bicycle-pedestrian network and cut car trips per household by 25 per cent. (1)
d. Swiss and German research on car-sharing has shown that people who have joined a car sharing scheme (not car pooling) and who have previously owned a car have reduced their car mileage by 50 per cent. The Federal Ministry of Transport in Germany estimated that car sharing will reduce annual vehicle kilometres by 7000 million. In Europe as a whole the figure is put at 30,000 million vehicle kilometres reduction. (2)
e. In Aachen, Germany traffic into the city centre was reduced by 85 per cent over the ten years. The car's share of transport went down from 44 per cent to 36 per cent and NOx pollution went down by 50 per cent. (3)
f. In Bologna a deliberate policy of traffic restraint involving park-and-ride and the closing of streets produced a 48 per cent drop in motorised traffic entering the historic core and a 64 per cent drop in cars between 1982 and 1989.(4)
g. In Groningen, Netherlands in 1990 48 per cent of all trips within the city were by bicycle, 17 per cent on foot, 5 per cent by public transport and 30 per cent by car. (4)
h. In Manchester the Metrolink tram has taken up to 50 per cent of car journeys off roads in the area it serves. With its first two routes it replaced over one million car journeys into the city centre each year. (5)
i. Five per cent of car users switched to a new "City Express" bus service in Belfast in the first 6 months of operation. (5)
j. Edinburgh set itself a traffic reduction target of 30 per cent. (5)
k. In Leicester 10 per cent more 7-9 year olds were allowed to walk to school after traffic calming. (5)
l. Levels of cycling in one English "Safe Routes to School" pilot project more than doubled even without the necessary infrastructure works being carried out. More than 120 pupils at Horndean Community School in Hampshire are regularly cycling to school compared with just 36 when the project began in 1995. (6)
m. The "Carte Orange" in Paris covering all modes and introduced in 1975 led to a 36 per cent increase in bus patronage. The London travel card led to a 16 per cent increase in public transport use at a time of decline elsewhere. (7)
n. The integration of land use planning and transport planning in Portland, Oregon, led to 30,000 more jobs and 40 per cent of commuters using public transport.(7)
o. In Zurich substantial investment in public transport coupled with parking and access policies led to the stabilisation necessary for local authorities to do their work effectively. (8)
I.2 These examples illustrate very clearly one important fact which will run throughout this report. Achieving significant modal shifts – shifting people out of cars, creating more liveable cities, towns and rural areas and meeting traffic reduction targets – is responsive to policy. We can set and meet demanding traffic reduction targets. The relative lack of progress in the UK in recent years is not indicative of a fundamental problem or even a carefully balanced choice to opt for car travel. It is the result of policy that has led in that direction, and the time has now come to change that policy so that it moves in another direction.
I.3 This stance also implies a corollary. In moving away from car dependency and shifting to lower levels of car use with higher levels of use of the alternatives brings with it multiple benefits:
a. Economic gains to city centre retailing.
b. National economic benefits.
c. Re-invigorated neighbourhoods and communities.
d. Improved health.
e. Reductions in the total amount of public expenditure devoted to new infrastructure.
f. Reductions in the cost of dealing with the health impacts of transport.
g. Reductions in greenhouse gases.
h. Social inclusion: it helps the young, the disabled, the elderly and the poor.
I.4 This report shows how it is possible to achieve targets in traffic reduction. Achieving these targets will not be a matter of a one-off technical design operation. Traffic reduction will involve new ways of designing and implementing policy as well as new policy objectives These new ways of working will require:
a. Clear action by national government to put the right conditions in place that will allow local authorities to do their work effectively. Local authorities must pressure central government for this.
b. Highly co-ordinated and integrated strategies at the level of local authorities to bring together the traditional transport, highway and planning functions with the agents of land use change and traffic generation. A collaborative model of working must be formulated and implemented.
Part 1: Policies Currently
Available to Local Authorities with Potential for Traffic Reduction
1.1. Local authorities already have a number of powers that are well-suited to deliver traffic reduction. Very often they do not have the resources to make best use of these powers and they will be faced with decisions from other organisations (eg schools and NHS Trusts) that will add significantly to traffic levels. They may also be faced with decisions from central government that in the context of traffic reduction are perverse, eg road construction, location of new hospitals, and the granting of planning appeals. Local authorities will also be concerned about traffic reduction measures that may reduce their competitiveness as retail centres or as desirable locations for inward investment. Hence the need for coordination between local authorities and at regional and national level.
1.2 The policy areas most likely to reduce traffic levels are listed below. For the purposes of this discussion no attempt is made to distinguish between the powers and duties of highway authorities, shire counties, district councils, city councils or unitary authorities.
1.3. Local government planning needs to focus on influencing applicants and developers to locate their developments on sites that:
a. Maximise walking, cycling and public transport use.
b. Increase the density of provision.
c. Minimise distances to interrelated activities.
d. Deter car dependency.
1.4. The following will contribute to a short- and longer-term reduction in traffic.
a. Policies that resist the conversion of agricultural (irrespective of grade) or green-belt land to housing, industry, business park and retail/leisure centre.
b. Policies that encourage intensive use of "brown land".
c. Conversion of older industrial and public buildings to residential uses.
d. Policies that encourage the use of all available space above shops and offices in traditional town centres.
1.5. Parking policies should establish a market for mobility choices where the balance of advantage to the consumer lies in alternatives to the car. Local authorities have considerable experience of pricing, development and allocation policies and this can be harnessed to good effect in designing the appropriate package of measures to achieve traffic reduction in a specific geographical area. As a general principle, policies of reducing car parking provision and increasing its cost are more likely to achieve reduction targets than the opposite.
1.6. Reallocating space away from private motorised transport and towards the alternatives will be important, giving priority to buses, bicycles and pedestrians. Bus lanes, cycle paths and pedestrian facilities all have the potential to make these alternatives quicker, safer and more pleasant. They are also more efficient on cost and space-use criteria. There is considerable potential for increasing the area devoted to these uses and taking the space from roads. There is also scope for designating lorry priority lanes.
1.6. There is considerable potential for improving conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users by ensuring that these groups receive the highest level of priority at junctions, cross-roads and crossing facilities. A traffic system in which buses and pedestrians never have to wait when encountering motorised transport sends clear signals about priorities and adds significantly to the total quality of those alternatives. Local authorities can also consider redesigning the circulation pattern of urban centres. These patterns often bear the mark of the 1960s and 1970s in terms of one-way gyratory systems, one-way streets etc and were implemented to increase capacity. The same principles can be harnessed to reduce traffic by removing one-way systems, closing streets to traffic, restoring high streets to people-friendly uses and preventing traffic using any road as a through road in sensitive areas (retail centres, high streets, surroundings of schools, hospitals, colleges and residential areas).
1.8. Local authorities have already shown the way towards increased use of public transport through TravelWise initiatives. More generally there is considerable scope for local authorities as initiators to design and market high-quality information systems, attractive travel card and commuter card schemes. Levels of awareness of public transport availability are low in a post- deregulation world and expectations of failure are high. This can be countered by serious, high-quality publicity and marketing.
1.9. Local authorities can take the initiative here and can work in partnership with others to advance such approaches. Individual companies and sites have significant potential to reduce car commuting and car based work journeys if the most appropriate package of incentives and disincentives is put together to bring about a given level of change. Local authorities should always take the lead by setting the highest possible standard. In many towns and cities local authorities will be amongst the top five traffic generators themselves. Setting internal targets to reduce car commuting and car based travel in the course of work can provide leadership and guidance to others.
1.10. Local authorities have considerable influence over the provision of statutory school-age education. There is potential for influencing the mode of transport chosen by parents (for their children) and by staff. This is the objective of the national "Safe Routes to School" programme. Schools can be responsible for up to 20 per cent of the traffic in the morning peak in term-time. It follows that a comprehensive “Safe Routes to School” programme could cut morning peak traffic levels by 10%.
1.11. The total number of vehicles and the uses to which those vehicles are put is very large indeed in local authorities. Vehicles are operated, amongst others, by social services departments, police, ambulance, fire, engineers, street cleansing, parks and cemeteries, education departments. Individual staff in local authorities are also encouraged to use their vehicles in the course of their work through a system of allowances and mileage payments. There is considerable scope for traffic reduction (and getting better value for money) from a complete overhaul of the totality of vehicle ownership, operation, use and financial support. As long as target service levels are achieved and specialist uses protected (eg fire appliances), there is no reason whatsoever why the total vehicle collection cannot be audited to establish the potential for shared use, pooled vehicles, cycles instead of cars and the substitution of tele-conferencing for physical travel where the purpose of travel is for meetings.
1.12. Any policy of any local authority in any area might have an effect on traffic levels (either an increase or a decrease). All policy proposals should therefore be subjected to an audit process that identifies the magnitude and direction of this change. Where policies are likely to increase traffic levels they should be compared with alternatives so that an informed choice can be made.
Co-ordination
1.13. Traffic reduction is impossible without the co-ordinating and strategic role of local authorities in their geographical area. Traffic reduction responsibilities require a significant leap forward in the reality of co-ordination at local authority level. No one measure will produce the desired quantitative effect. No one package of measures will achieve targets in every area. The challenge for local authorities is to design and implement as many different measures as possible in a highly co-ordinated fashion in their area and ensure that they are appropriate to the specific conditions of that area.
Part 2: Selected Case Study
Material to Illustrate Best Practice in those Policy Areas
2.1. John Robert (of the consultancy TEST) ran a comparison of Almere, Netherlands and Milton Keynes and demonstrated the extent to which land use and transport planning can influence the demand for motorised transport: "the most obvious finding and an important one, was the much higher percentage of trips made by car and the much lower level of bicycle use in Milton Keynes when compared to Almere (65.7 per cent of trips by car compared to 43.1 per cent, 5.8 per cent of trips by bicycle compared to 26.5 per cent respectively)". The influence of compact cities on reducing motorised trips was reviewed in Smith, Whitelegg and Williams (1997). Physical land use planning is a tried and tested method of reducing the length of trips, increasing the use of non-motorised modes and reducing the demand for expensive road infrastructure.
2.2. Restrictions in mainland European cities such as Zurich and decisions as in Amsterdam to reduce car park numbers (Lemmers, 1996) provide best practice examples. Good practice parking policies exist in Sheffield, Winchester, Leeds, Southampton, Cambridge and Edinburgh. An MVA consultancy study of Bristol for the UK government showed that car trips into central Bristol could be cut by 41 per cent by a 75 per cent reduction in on-street parking, higher charges and enforcement of planning permission for non-residential parking. (9)
2.3. There are many isolated examples of successful policies in this area: the Manchester Metrolink, bus lanes in several British cities, Zurich's prioritisation of public transport; Maidstone Integrated Sustainable Transport (MIST) project; car-free residential and city centre areas (Lubeck, Amsterdam, Berlin, Edinburgh); building homes on car parks; bicycle priority schemes and planning in York and Cambridge, Delft and Groningen (Netherlands), Detmold and Rosenheim (Germany); Copenhagen's cycling strategy; Darmstadt's (Germany) encouragement of cyclists and pedestrians to share the same large car-free space in the city centre; SMART buses in Liverpool; new tram systems in Strasbourg; innovative car-sharing initiatives (StattAuto) in Berlin, Bremen and Edinburgh (eg 3000 participants in the Berlin car sharing scheme removed 2000 cars from the roads of Berlin). Vienna adopted a policy of constructing several hundred extended pavements at crossings and tram stops to improve safety for pedestrians.
2.4. Groningen, Netherlands developed a sector access model; Bochum, Germany prioritised its trams in preference to cars; Gothenburg, Sweden) divided the central business district into 5 cells which had the effect of reducing car mobility by 50 per cent; Houten, Netherlands (pop. 30,000) implemented traffic restraint, restricting access by sectors and giving preference to bicycles. Over 20 years Oxford produced one of the lowest rates of traffic growth in the city centre of any UK city, through parking controls and park-and-ride schemes.
Marketing
2.5. Large scale marketing exercises increased bus patronage in Lemgo, Germany. Similar but less ambitious schemes have been found in the UK, for example SMART buses (Liverpool) and TravelWise schemes. System-wide, discounted tickets have helped increase public patronage in Germany, for example the Umweltkarte or "environment tickets", as in Freiburg where the Umweltkarte is attributed with a reduction of 4000 cars per day on the roads to the city centre.
2.6. These are increasingly common in the UK, for example in Nottingham (City, County, Queens Medical Centre, Universities and Boots), Plymouth (Derriford Hospital), and Oxford (University planning agreement). The Rijnstate Hospital in the Netherlands restricted its car parking provision to 400 spaces for 2050 staff. Transport Demand Management policies increased the use of public transport from 8 per cent to 40 per cent of all journeys, and restricting car parking availability was the key to this success.
2.6. Initial results in the "Safe Routes to School" programme coordinated by Sustrans, the national cycle path charity, have been encouraging.
2.8. The Riverside NHS Community Trust based in Parsons Green, London conducted a thorough audit of all the trips used by staff in the course of work. The objective was to reduce the number of car trips whilst maintaining productivity and enhancing staff safety.
Part 3: Identification of
Policies with Traffic Reduction Potential that Depend on Central Government
Changing the Rules
3.1. Local authorities will be able to take many initiatives on their own, but will need the active co-operation of central government to achieve the best possible road traffic reduction. This is particularly so in the area of fiscal incentives and in the area of regional "level playing fields". In the absence of a very active supporting role from central government local authorities will under-perform in achieving traffic reduction. Therefore they must press for central government action in a number of priority areas:
a. Urban road pricing (including congestion charging).
b. Higher fuel taxation.
c. Taxation on parking spaces at the workplace.
d. Taxation of parking spaces at car-intensive developments, eg out-of-town and edge of town retailing complexes, airports, leisure centres, sports facilities.
e. Regional norms on car parking provision to deter a competitive bidding-up process.
f. Financial support from hypothecated revenues for quality public transport, co-ordination, integration, dense pedestrian and cycle networks and innovative programmes of accessibility enhancement for rural areas.
g. Substantial policy integration at the national level so that transport and land use planning policies support health policies, climate change policies and vice versa.
h. Modification of the "predict and provide" approach which still determines policies towards airport capacity and housing provision.
i. Legislation for the establishment of regional transport authorities following the German models. These authorities would be charged with the responsibilities of bringing public and private finance to bear on the supply of public transport, high quality integration and co-ordination , "environment ticketing" schemes and high quality information.
j. Providing new methods of funding public transport, eg fuel taxation as in Germany and employer contribution as in Paris.
k. Eliminating subsidies to private motorised transport through the company car, business mileage and corporation tax regimes.
3.2. Not all these policy areas will be discussed here.
3.3. Road pricing and fuel taxation are attractive policy options, particularly if the revenues can be recycled into the local economy to support all the alternatives to the private car.
3.4. While it is still too early to fully assess the impact of congestion charging in London, it is clearly the case that traffic levels have been significantly cut, and many millions of pounds raised towards improvements in public transport.
3.5. In a scheme in Stockholm, 13 per cent of revenue was allocated to administrative costs, 79 per cent refunded to residents, and the rest set aside for noise reduction and public transport expenditures. (10)
Parking Taxes
3.6. A well-developed system of public and private car parking charges already exists in the UK. Depending on the location, more than half of the available car parking in a town or city can fall outside these systems. Private non-residential car parking (PNR) at workplaces, hospitals, universities and airports provide a powerful incentive for the use of car based transport for commuting and other purposes and for the use of cars in the course of work. If local authorities are going to be successful in achieving major traffic reduction there will need to be strong disincentives to add to the supply of PNR spaces and strong incentives for employers and site managers to develop mobility options that give far more choice than the car. This will, in its turn, have an impact on the initial concept and location choice to the benefit of public transport, walking and cycling options. A specific car space tax might be a useful fiscal measure to achieve these objectives.
3.6. Local authorities have many responsibilities in addition to transport, the environment and sustainability. Indeed many would put job creation, economic development and inward investment at the top of any list of priorities. Given the well-documented and close association between strong environmental policies and local, secure job creation, this not in itself an area for policy conflict.
3.8. Conflicts do arise, however, in the wider context of regional development and competition for inward investment, growth and retail viability. This is a wider issue than traffic reduction but it would not be reasonable for Liverpool, for example, to adopt a strong traffic reduction policy involving cuts in parking provision, increased car parking charges, congestion charging and traffic management to restrict car access if nearby Manchester, for example, were to do the opposite. It would be in the joint interests of both Manchester and Liverpool to agree to a common set of norms in terms of parking provision, parking charges and, possibly, road pricing. The retailing centres could then compete on quantity and quality of retailing provision, environmental quality, architectural and cultural diversity and much more.
3.9. Traffic reduction strategies are likely to falter in the absence of an "arms limitation agreement". Central government can assist by taking the initiative to devise and implement regional norms. Local authorities should press central government for this, and should enlist the support of regional assemblies in doing so.
Part 4: Traffic Reduction
for Heavy Goods Vehicles
4.1. HGVs are a longstanding problem in towns and cities, on trunk roads through villages and in or near national parks. In general their impact is much greater than their numbers would suggest. Their impact on noise, road damage, pedestrian and cyclist fears and air quality is large and there is a strong case for reduction in ways that can protect the economy of towns and cities and the consumer who has come to depend on goods and services supplied by HGVs. Considerable progress has been made in this area in mainland Europe, particularly Germany, whilst hardly any progress at all has been made in the UK. In Germany HGV reduction strategies which pay attention to the commercial interests of the companies involved are generally referred to as "City-Logistik" strategies.
4.2. City Logistics involves setting up new partnerships and styles of co-operation between all those involved in the logistics chain and in delivering/receiving goods in city centres. These partnerships offer significant reductions in vehicle kilometres and truck numbers and are currently in existence in Germany and Switzerland. City Logistics are a very clear illustration of the importance of developing high quality organisational arrangements and inter-company co-operation agreements in addition to whatever new technology might be appropriate. City logistics have taken transport operations into an area of development that builds links and emphasises co-operation across all players and interest groups.
4.3. In Germany partnerships between logistics contractors are reducing lorry numbers and improving the urban environment. These partnerships (known as City-Logistik companies in Germany) are in operation in Berlin, Bremen, Ulm, Kassel and Freiburg. In the Freiburg example, three of the partners in the scheme would leave city centre deliveries at the premises of a fourth. The latter would then deliver all the goods involved in the city centre area. A second group of five partners would deliver all its goods to one depot located near the city centre. An independent contractor (City-Logistik) would deliver them to city centre customers. A third group, this time with only two service providers, specialised in refrigerated fresh products. These partners formed an unbroken relay chain, one partner collecting the goods from the other for delivery to the city centre.
4.4. The Freiburg scheme reduced total journey times from 566 hours to 168 hours (per month), the monthly number of truck operations from 440 to 295 (a 33 per cent reduction) and the time spent by lorries in the city from 612 hours to 317 hours (per month). The number of customers supplied or shipments made has remained the same. The Kassel scheme showed a reduction of vehicle kilometres travelled of 70 per cent and the number of delivering trucks by 11 per cent. This reduced the costs of all the companies involved and increased the amount of work that could be done by each vehicle/driver combination.
4.5. These reductions in vehicle numbers and in traffic levels have benefited the companies through higher levels of utilisation of the vehicle stock. It is not in the interests of logistic companies to have expensive vehicles clogged up in city centres, one-way systems and on circuitous ring roads. There are clear economic benefits arising from lorry traffic reductions.
Part 5: Rural Areas
5.1. Rural areas have higher levels of dependency on cars than urban areas and have experienced a steady decline in recent years in the range and quantity of facilities that represent the normal everyday destinations for trips. The decline in rural shops, post offices, schools and health-care facilities has been documented in most of the UK's rural areas. For these reasons special care is needed with traffic reduction policies in rural areas.
5.2. Rural areas are not universally perceived as particularly difficult in terms of public transport provision and facility development. Rural transport and facility density in Switzerland and Norway are well developed and sit amongst a number of other measures designed to support the residents of rural areas. In the UK this support network is lacking and it would be unreasonable to expect transport policies to make up for the huge deficits in other policies. The existence of a "rural transport problem" is largely dependent on the extent to which organisational and fiscal changes over the last 30 years have left rural areas unsupported. When this support is restored – for example, through financial incentives that will support small schools, post offices, shops and rural enterprise as well as affordable housing – then the "rural transport problem" is rendered less intractable.
5.3. Central government can support rural areas through a policy of providing resources for small facilities in a dispersed pattern in a rural area particularly in education and health care. It should also be possible – and there are precedents – for patterns of business rate relief to be created that support the meeting of needs locally.
5.4. Rural inhabitants will still need to travel and unless transport initiatives are vigorously pursued this is likely to be by car. There are, however, potentially a number of alternatives to the car in rural areas:
a. Much improved bus services on main routes into larger settlements.
b. Improvements to rural rail services where these exist.
c. Community/voluntary car schemes.
d. Community bus/dial-a-ride schemes.
e. Improvements to pedestrian and cycling facilities.
f. Shared use of vehicles, eg post buses.
g. Home deliveries.
5.5. The exact mix of transport opportunities will vary from area to area and from the deep rural situation to circumstances where a large market town is accessible within half an hour by bus. UK experience with rural bus services and community bus services up to 1985 was successful in many places but was dealt a severe blow by bus deregulation. The law is in urgent need of reform to encourage innovative, community-run bus services in rural areas. Local authorities should press central government for this.
5.6. In spite of this unhelpful public transport regime there have still been some very good examples of quality bus services in rural areas, such as in Cerrig-y-Druidion in North Wales.
5.6. Rural railways also continue to provide quality public transport in those areas that are served by this mode.
5.8. In rural Oxfordshire a study of Cholsey and Chalgrove showed that residents of the village with the poor levels of public transport (Chalgrove) travelled 30 per cent further by car than Cholsey residents. Cholsey had a bus or a train at least every hour. The survey (Environmental Change Unit, Oxford University, 1996) also showed that the average distance for car journeys within both villages was one mile or less, indicating a significant potential for transfer to non-car modes. It would be mistaken to assume that rural transport demand is dominated by large numbers of long journeys in situations where there is no public transport. The reality is far more varied and has considerable potential for intervention to bring about a shift away from the car.
5.9. In Germany the "Buergerbus" initiative has set a high standard for affordable, frequent, community-managed rural bus services. These buses have been funded by the state government of North Rhine Westphalia and operated by locally managed companies to cover a network of market towns and sparsely populated areas on a variety of frequencies.
5.10. There is considerable potential for significant change in the diversity and quantity of rural public transport services in the UK given changes in the law and financial support from central government to local communities. Local authorities should press central government for this.
Part 6: A Review of the
Economic Consequences of Traffic Reduction
6.1 There is a well-developed literature on this subject. Most of the work is German in origin, where resources have been devoted to empirical research on the relationship between traffic restraint (eg reducing the number of car parking places in cities) and retail viability.
6.2 One German study suggested that retail trade in central city districts increases with policies that encourage environmentally friendly transport modes. Of the 38 cities studied, 14 had above average retail growth. Of these 14, 10 had below average provision of infrastructure for the car. (11)
6.3 This is not really surprising. There is a large literature on the costs of congestion and the scale of the defensive expenditures that have to be deployed to cope with the air pollution, noise pollution, road traffic accidents and congestion impacts of traffic growth and traffic concentration in space and time (Maddison et al, 1996).
6.4 Authoritative European surveys of the external costs of transport agree that the total external costs of transport in the EU run into hundreds of billions of euros per year (IWW, Karlsruhe). The road total is 50 times higher than the rail total and for all practical purposes walking and cycling can be regarded as having zero external costs.
6.5 The full implementation of already accepted EU policy in the area of internalising the external cost of transport would significantly reduce the number of vehicle kilometres of car and lorry travel while at the same time expanding the use of other modes and liberating significant resources for alternative investment.
6.6 In a seminal study of Japan's urban transport system and economic performance, Hook (1994) associated Japan's reliance on non-motorised transport and rail transit with its economic success. Hook found that high urban density and a transportation system heavily reliant on non-motorised transport, and its linkages with rail based mass transit, have been critical to Japan's economic success. By minimising aggregate transportation costs, Japan has been able to minimise its production costs, making its goods more competitive in international markets. Furthermore, by discouraging the consumption of private automobiles and encouraging savings, a larger pool of potential investment capital was created. The car, far from being a status symbol, is more a symbol of economic assets being wasted on consumption instead of on job-creating and productivity-increasing investment. Meanwhile the bicycle and other non-motorised vehicles, far from being a symbol of economic backwardness, are more symbols of a society able to meet its passenger transport needs in the most cost-effective and least environmentally-damaging way, allowing scarce economic resources to be invested elsewhere.
6.8 There are considerable benefits to be had from public transport investments. Steer, Davies and Gleave (1997) in their report for Transport 2000 showed that the total non-user benefit from investing in the Midland Metro Line 1 amounted to £112.85 million at 1989 prices. Evidence from Portland, Oregon (USA) revealed a major wave of economic revitalisation from a new transit system and its associated land use planning (Centre for Clean Air Policy, Washington DC, 1997). Portland's economic decline in the 1960s and 1970s was reversed by new high density housing in the downtown area, conversion of streets to pedestrian-friendly configurations, replacing a riverside motorway with an esplanade, stringent parking restrictions, free public transport in the central area using a new light rail system, and the scrapping of road schemes. The result was a revitalised city centre with 30,000 more jobs and 40 per cent of commuters using public transport.
6.9 Detailed empirical research in Germany has shown that there is no relationship between the amount of car parking provision in the main city centres and the amount of retail spending in those areas (Baier and Schaefer, 1997). Freiburg, with very low numbers of car parking spaces per inhabitant, had a higher level of retail spending than Wetzlar, which had four times the number of spaces per inhabitant as Freiburg. Also, the higher the number of public transport arrivals in the cities the greater is the level of retail activity in those centres. On the basis of this evidence it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that traffic reduction in British cities will not damage the economic fortunes of retail centres.
6.10 The literature and experience from all advanced industrial countries that have invested in alternatives to the car and in forms of mobility other than the car suggest that there are measurable economic benefits and gains from doing so. Traffic reduction is not about stopping people travelling. Transferring trips to modes of transport other than the car or planning for land use arrangements and accessibility patterns that stimulate innovations in supply (eg home deliveries) are more likely to create jobs than to destroy jobs. Indeed sustainable transport policies with traffic reduction at their heart are examples of strategies that have the potential to create real, lasting local jobs that can sustain local communities at a time when globalisation tendencies are making jobs far more mobile than at any other time in the past 50 years.
Conclusion: Achieving
Demanding Targets
C.1. The evidence of international best practice indicates that Britain could, without difficulty, meet very demanding traffic reduction targets. While the government anticipated 17% traffic growth during the course of its 10-year transport plan to 2010 – despite £180 billion worth of investment – we could confidently expect a comprehensive package of Green transport policies to deliver an absolute reduction in road traffic of some 20%.
C.2. This would be possible because:
a. Current variations in modal split in UK cities indicate considerable scope for improvement in non-car modes overall.
b. Existing best practice in Britain (eg Manchester Metrolink, Liverpool SMART buses, cycling in York) indicate that achievements in traffic reduction are not confined to mainland Europe, even though mainland Europe continues to be a stimulus for greater effort in this direction.
c. Restrictions on car parking and on road space do reduce the physical quantity of traffic. This is why London's traffic growth has been considerably less than some other cities and why outer London's traffic growth has been greater than central London.
d. A combination of strong central government fiscal intervention together with local initiatives is an effective policy cocktail.
C.3. Local authority intervention in the UK will have to be carefully designed and managed to produce a strategy that is appropriate to the particular geographical circumstances. The range of policies that are available now is more than enough to deliver the reduction targets. Should there be difficulties there are more policies that can be brought on stream in the future. The combination of several layers of policies offers opportunities now to slow down and stop the growth so that it does not happen, and longer-term flexibility through the land use planning system presents a unique opportunity to deliver a major boost to the quality of life of all UK residents and to the future viability and liveability of both cities and rural areas.
C.4. All elected Green councillors will provide a strong Green voice in their local authority for traffic reduction, development of Green alternatives, and the social, economic and environmental benefits such policies will bring.
Notes
1. Hammond, B. (1994), "Buses, bicycles and small town revivals" in US-European Perspectives on the Climate Change Debate, (Washington DC: Center for Clean Air Policy), pp 33-41.
2. European Commission (1997) DGXVII (Energy). Improving energy efficiency and reducing gas emissions in urban transport. Report of a series of car free cities seminars.
3. Car Free City Conference, Amsterdam, 1994, Regina Poth, page 45.
4. Pharoah,T. and Apel, D. (1995) Transport Concepts in European Cities (Aldershot: Avebury).
5. Transport 2000 (1997) Roads 21: A Roads Policy for the Next Century.
6. Network News, 6 (1997), the Quarterly Magazine of the National Cycle Network.
6. European Commission (1996), The Citizen's Network. Fulfilling the Potential of Public Passenger Transport in Europe.
8. OECD (1995), Urban Travel and Sustainable Development. European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris.
9. Transport 2000 (1997), Just the Ticket: Traffic Reduction through Parking Restraint.
10. European Federation for Transport and the Environment (1996), Briefing Paper on Road Pricing (Brussels).
11. European Commission (1996) European Sustainable Cities Report, Expert Group on the Urban Environment, page 176.
Published and promoted by Spencer Fitz-Gibbon for the Green Party,
Both at 1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ.