|
The Green Transport Revolution
(And How to Pay for It)
Dr Spencer Fitz-Gibbon
for the
Green Party of England & Wales
May 2001
Contents
Introduction:
Labour's £60 billion 10-year roads plan
The
Green alternative:
A shopping list for a social transport revolution
Conclusion:
The public wants it
Notes
Introduction:
Labour's £60 billion 10-year roads plan
When the Labour government revealed its £180 billion 10-year transport plan
to 2010, it attempted to cover its environmental embarrassment with the
flimsy veil of green rhetoric. We were witnessing a blatant return to the
days of Tory roadbuilding, wrapped decorously in the language of
"integrated transport system" and "modernising Britain's
transport infrastructure." Politicians who had promised us they would
have failed if within five years of coming to power there were not many fewer
car journeys being made, were planning to build 100 new bypasses and widen
360 miles of trunk road and motorway - regardless of the fact that this would
significantly increase traffic. Apparently they saw no inconsistency between
this ecological barbarism and their rhetoric about "putting the
environment at the heart of government" and their avowed concern to
tackle climate change.
All this was going to cost the taxpayer £60 billion directly, including
road maintenance. But it would also cost society at least £110 billion in
externalities - the hidden costs of road transport, ranging from the health
costs of pollution to the economic damage caused by climate change. And this
is a very conservative estimate. [ 1 ]
The purpose of this report is to indicate the huge benefits of
transferring funds from roadbuilding to the Green alternatives - to indicate
just what Britain could buy if we scrapped the national roads programme.
The Green
Alternative:
A shopping list for a social transport revolution.
Scrapping the roads programme would liberate some £35 billion over ten years.
Of course there would be greater savings under this scheme, because:-
- Major traffic
reduction would significantly reduce wear and tear on the roads, cutting
the bill for road maintenance.
- Banning the heaviest
lorries would save millions, if not billions, in the cost of
bridge-strengthening projects currently planned.
- As we reduced
traffic, the externalised costs would fall
But this report merely focuses on
the £35 billion. And £35 billion could pay for ALL of the following:-
- 20,000 residential
streets redesigned as Home Zones. This would be four times as many as in
the Netherlands, which has pioneered Home Zones. [ 2
] Home Zones reduce road accidents and reduce the proportion of
deaths. They create safe play space for children. They transform the residential
urban environment, and are especially welcome in run-down inner-city
areas
- Sixteen times as
many bus lanes as we have at present. This would speed up bus journey
times and make travelling by bus more attractive - helping to replace
car journeys with public transport, and thus cutting congestion and
pollution. [ 2
]
- Comprehensive Safe
Routes to School programmes for every school and college in the UK. [ 2
] As well as many other benefits, this would cut morning rush-hour
traffic by 10%. [ 3
]
- Light rail systems
for sixteen more cities, like those in Greater Manchester and Sheffield.
This would replace many millions of car journeys every year. Studies
indicate that this could create at least 56,000 extra jobs. [ 4
]
- £8 billion to reduce
bus and rail fares, to be spent over a 10-year period. This would help
make public transport more competitive vis-a-vis the car. It would be a
form of subsidy entirely justified both by considerations of social
justice, and by reductions in environmental and health impacts and the
economic costs of these.
- £2 billion
specifically for improvements to rural public transport. Some 17% of
rural households don't have cars. Britain's villages need good bus and
rail links.
- £2 billion
specifically for improving transport for disabled people. This would be
a major contribution to social justice
Conclusion:
The public wants it
An opinion poll in May 2001 found
that 61% of respondents wanted to stop roadbuilding and invest in
alternatives instead. Only 22% supported the Labour, Conservative and Liberal
Democrat policy of trying to do both. [ 5 ]
Those 61% support Green Party
policy over the transport policy of the other parties. And if those 61% vote
Green, they are voting for a Green transport revolution. It's hardly
surprising that public opinion has moved so impressively in the Green Party's
direction, because the Green transport revolution would have huge benefits.
It would improve the nation's health, as some 24,000 people die every year as
a result of air pollution, and traffic is a major cause of this. [ 6 ]
It would create many thousands of jobs. [ 7 ]
It would provide safer, healthier, generally more pleasant urban and rural
environments, including traffic-calmed neighbourhoods and Safe Routes to
School programmes for every school and college in the UK.
This would be one of the single
most effective steps in the greening of society.
Notes:-
1. See Fair on Fuel, Fair on the
Future: A social, economic and environmental case for higher fuel taxes,
Green Party, November 2000. The best available figures indicate that road
transport's externalities amount to between £11.2 billion and £17.2 billion a
year, not taking into account climate change. At the upper estimate
therefore, the hidden costs of road transport during this 10-year period may
be £172 billion, plus transport's 25% or more contribution to the costs of
climate change.
2. Extrapolated from figures provided by Transport 2000:
http://www.transport2000.demon.co.uk . Further information from
info@transport2000.demon.co.uk .
3. Eco-logica environmental consultancy. See also Safe Routes to School,
Green Party, May 2001.
4. See Best of Both Worlds: Green policies for sustainability AND
job-creation, Green Party, May 2001.
5. ICM/Ecologist, reported in the May 2001 issue of The Ecologist.
6. See Fair on Fuel, Fair on the Future, op cit, for estimates of the health
costs of road transport.
7. See Best of Both Worlds, op cit, which indicates that Green transport
systems sustain more jobs per £m of investment than spending on road
transport.
Thanks to the following for their assistance: Alan
Francis (Green Party Transport Spokesperson), Prof John Whitelegg (Eco-Logica
environmental consultancy), Dr Lucy Ford, Dr Tony Grayling (Institute for
Public Policy Research); and also the Environmental Transport Association,
Friends of the Earth International, Friends of the Earth UK, the Global
Commons Institute, The Guardian, the House of Commons Library, the Road
Danger Reduction Forum, and Transport 2000.
Promoted
and published by Spencer Fitz-Gibbon,
The Green Party, 1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ.
Tel 020 7561 0282. Fax 020 7272 6653.
Email media@greenparty.org.uk .
|