October 2007
The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s web site in accordance with the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative’s criteria. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department.
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR
Telephone 020 7944 8300
Web site www.dft.gov.uk
© Crown copyright, 2007, except where otherwise stated
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.
The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, provided that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified.
Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to the Licensing Division, Office of Public Sector Information, St Clements House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ, fax 01603 723000, email licensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
To reproduce maps, contact Ordnance Survey via their web site www.ordnancesurvey.gov.uk/copyright or write to Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey, Romsey Road, Southampton SO16 4GU.
ISBN 978 0 10172262 9
Transport has a vital role to play in supporting sustainable economic growth, but I am clear that it must also play its full part in the UK’s overall framework for reducing carbon emissions.
As Sir Rod Eddington’s report argued, a well-functioning transport system is vital to the continued success of the UK economy and to our quality of life.
The recent Comprehensive Spending Review has reaffirmed the Government’s policy of providing long-term stability of funding for transport by extending the Department for Transport’s funding guideline to 2018-19. Public spending on transport will have doubled in real terms over the twenty years from 1998-99. We must ensure that this continued investment in the country’s networks, together with our other policies, underpins a nationwide transport system that continues to support the UK’s economic prosperity.
And our policy decisions must be firmly based on the evidence of the costs and benefits of those policies. The more we listen to the evidence, the greater the impact our policies will have. The Department for Transport has a strong evidence base and expertise already from which we will build: my priority is to ensure it continues to influence decision-making in the future.
A fundamental goal of transport policy must be to ensure that the transport sector plays its proper role in our fight to tackle climate change.
Professor Sir Nick Stern argued that this does not have to be an either/or choice. A well-designed strategy can support economic growth and tackle carbon emissions. Fundamentally, we need to get the prices right to cover the environmental and congestion costs of transport, to encourage technological innovation, to promote behavioural change, and to be smart with our investment decisions.
If we do that, we can support people’s desire for mobility, whilst still ensuring that transport contributes to the overall reduction in emissions which the Government will enshrine in legislation through the Climate Change Bill.
I am also determined to adopt a stronger passenger and user focus in our policies. We must increase our understanding of the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and road users, rail, bus, and aviation passengers and of international and domestic freight transporters. Our policies must improve every part of their travel experience, from leaving their front door to arriving safely at their final destination. If we are to achieve that, we must understand the full end to end journey.
This discussion document responds to the reports of Eddington and Stern, and looks at how we can translate their recommendations into our policy-making process over the short, medium and long term.
It begins a process of debate about how we best ensure that our investment and policies result in real-world improvements that are both sustained and sustainable. And I urge people to join in the debate and have their say.
Rt Hon. Ruth Kelly MP
Secretary of State for Transport
October 2007
1. This document has three aims. Firstly, it describes how the Government is responding to the recommendations made in the Eddington study to improve transport’s contribution to economic growth and productivity, and how it is ensuring that transport will play its part in delivering the overall level of reductions in carbon emissions recommended by the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. Secondly, it sets out the Department for Transport’s ambitious policy and investment plans for the period to 2013-14. And finally, it proposes a new approach to longer-term transport strategy, building on the model recommended by Sir Rod Eddington, and explains how we will engage with passengers, users, the transport industry and other stakeholders as we develop and implement that process.
2. People’s aspirations are changing, and our transport planning needs to keep pace with that. For much of the post-War period, people were interested in personal mobility and demanded a wider range of goods on supermarket shelves. Road traffic grew inexorably and there was a rapid increase in air travel. Use of ‘greener’ forms of transport – bus, cycling and rail – all declined. More recently, however, whilst people continue to value mobility highly, they have also become much more concerned about the adverse impacts of transport on climate, health and quality of life and about their own travel experience as congestion mounts. At face value, this appears to suggest a stark choice between being ‘rich and dirty’ or ‘poor and green’.
3. Two recent Government-commissioned reports show that this is a false dichotomy.
4. The independent Stern Review, published in October 2006, makes it clear that the option of being ‘rich and dirty’ does not exist, because catastrophic climate change would have a huge economic cost, as well as damaging people’s lives and the planet. But nor do we have to be ‘poor’ to be ‘green’. Stern says developed countries must cut CO2 emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050, but that this can be achieved at a material, but manageable, global cost of 1 per cent of GDP, provided the right policies are put in place, although for developed countries like the UK this cost could be higher. This cost is significant, but is far lower than the costs of inaction. Similarly, the costs of failing to adapt to a changing climate would exceed those of taking early action. The UK Government’s climate change goals will be enshrined in legislation in the Climate Change Bill.
5. The Eddington study confirms that transport is vital to the economy. But he does not see a need to criss-cross the country with new links. He argues for a targeted approach to the most seriously congested parts of our urban, national and international networks. And he stresses that an innovative approach, which makes the most of existing networks through good regulation, and which sends the right price signals to users and transport providers, is likely to be just as important as further investment in new infrastructure.
6. Since delivering CO2 reduction and economic growth are both essential and mutually consistent, we propose for the first time to set explicitly transport goals for both.
7. A lot has been achieved over the past decade to deliver a transport system which can support a growing economy whilst helping us to live within carbon emission limits. The decline in use of the railway has been reversed. The energy efficiency of cars has improved. Local authorities have made much progress in delivering successful local transport packages, although experience, particularly in terms of bus patronage, has been varied across the country. London has shown what can be done to promote bus use and cycling, as part of a co-ordinated transport package of congestion-charging and investment. And transport demand is not growing as fast as it used to. Meeting the transport needs of a modern economy whilst delivering CO2 reductions is still a challenge, but not an insuperable one.
8. Nor is the challenge one for central Government alone. Private sector transport providers have more responsibility and individual transport users have more choice. Increasingly global markets demand decisions at the international level. Decision making has increasingly been devolved not only to Scotland, Wales and London, but to regions and local authorities, enabling them to take decisions which benefit from a closer understanding of the needs of local travel, and which can be integrated with other decisions on sustainable economic development.
9. We need a new approach to strategic transport planning which reflects the big transport challenges and the proper role of Government and others. The key steps are (1) clarity about policy goals, (2) identifying the transport challenges: the measurable outcomes which support goals and the detailed geographical analysis which identifies specific pressures, (3) generating options to address them and (4) selecting the options that deliver the best value for money in the context of sustainable development.
10. People travel daily and want a system that gets them from A to B safely, securely and without damaging the environment. If there are problems on their journey, they want to be told about them. They want predictable end-to-end journey times, and expect to travel in reasonable comfort and get a good quality of service. Businesses rely on transport not only so their workforces and customers can use it, but to ensure their goods can be transported quickly and cheaply. Reliability of transport networks, including international networks, is a high priority for freight. This wide range of aspirations mean that transport is necessarily complex, but the Government’s agenda can be summarised in five broad goals.
11. Goal 1 is to maximise the competitiveness and productivity of the economy. Eddington confirmed that, in broad terms, the UK transport system provided the right connections in the right places to support the journeys that matter to economic performance, but that delays and unreliability increased business costs, affected productivity and inhibited innovation. Growth in travel demand is densely concentrated on certain parts of the network at certain times of day. The challenge is therefore to improve the performance of the existing network, focusing on the most unreliable, congested and crowded sections in order to improve ‘predictable end-to-end journey time’ for travel to work, and for domestic and international business trips and goods movements. This will be especially critical as we realise the Government’s ambitions to deliver a step-change in housing supply, supported by adequate infrastructure, in line with the Delivery Agreement supporting the Government’s long-term housing growth PSA target.
12. Eddington recommended a sophisticated policy mix to achieve this goal:
13. Goal 2 is to address climate change, by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. Stern identified three essential elements of policy for minimising the costs of moving to a low carbon economy and reducing emissions in a way which is achievable, affordable and consistent with high and sustained economic growth. These elements are: establishing a carbon price associated with the emissions of greenhouse gases; encouraging innovation in low carbon technologies; and removing barriers to action. For transport, this means:
14. Goal 3 is to protect people’s safety, security and health. The safety of transport users and workers is critical, and we will continue to seek improvement. But public transport users and workers are also concerned about crime, and there is an enduring terrorist threat to be addressed. We need to address the negative impacts of transport on people’s health (for example, from air and water pollution), but also promote the health benefits of cycling and walking.
15. Goal 4 is to improve quality of life, including through a healthy natural environment. Transport’s negative impacts on quality of life are obvious – on noise and vibration, on biodiversity and landscape, amongst others. These impacts undermine people’s well-being and must be reduced. But transport also has powerful benefits which people value highly – the ability to visit friends and relatives, to enjoy the countryside and see the world, to enjoy a wider choice of goods in shops. Last but not least, people’s expectations of comfort, convenience, quality of service, and speed and accuracy of information are rising, and we must be prepared to respond to them.
16. Goal 5 is to promote greater equality of opportunity. Ensuring that our transport systems provide effective access for everyone, including disadvantaged groups and disabled people, to jobs, services and social networks is a core aim of transport policy. And we must also look at transport’s wider impacts. People’s life-chances can vary hugely depending on birth and geography: average household income varies widely between regions, and there are pockets of deprivation in even the most affluent areas. We will need to consider where transport improvements can help redress inequalities of this kind and we need to target effort to prevent poor accessibility from reinforcing wider social exclusion.
17. It will take time to implement in its entirety the new approach to strategic transport planning recommended by Eddington. In the interim our ambitious plans for the period to 2014, and the decisions we take between now and then, can make a substantial contribution to the five goals outlined above.
18. Our investment plans to 2014 will focus on the most congested and crowded routes as well as giving additional emphasis to public transport. Although many of our funding commitments during this period, and the options currently being progressed, were developed along traditional modal lines, they rightly reflect the current priority to focus new infrastructure and public transport investment in and around our most congested cities, whilst also addressing the most important capacity constraints on the other priority links identified by Eddington: our inter-urban and international gateways.
19. With regards to carbon emissions, the Climate Change Bill will set a long-term framework to cut total UK domestic CO2 emissions by 26-32 per cent by 2020, and by 60 per cent by 2050. The Government will also ask a new independent body, the Committee on Climate Change, to consider whether we should go further. Achieving these goals will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including transport.
20. We will therefore identify robust emissions reduction pathways for transport, starting domestically. This will include looking at the full range of options for putting transport onto a less carbon-intensive path, and examining, for the first time, potential cost-effective emissions reduction pathways for different types of journey and different transport modes. We will come forward with proposals in due course.
21. We are also strongly arguing for an emissions trading policy which would mean that every extra tonne of carbon from aviation growth above 2005 levels would need to be matched by a tonne saved somewhere else – a saving over and above existing targets. Alongside this, we are also looking at the contribution that behavioural change and improvements to technology and operating practices can make in tackling carbon emissions from international transport.
22. Much of our investment, including that on national rail and highway networks, will benefit urban, regional and local networks. But within our plans, we will provide considerable support for local authority investment in transport, taking account of Eddington’s advice that small local schemes often represent excellent value for money. This covers local measures to improve traffic-flow, promote buses, cycling and walking, enable effective road maintenance and enhance local travel networks. To address inequality, we are funding the new national off-peak concessionary bus travel arrangements for older and disabled people, as well as working with local authorities as they develop and implement plans to improve accessibility. We are also working with Communities and Local Government to deliver the Government’s housing target in a sustainable way, in particular through the identification and creation of up to 10 new eco-towns.
23. We are also making significant funding available to support packages which combine demand-management measures such as road pricing with public transport and actions to support the development of low-carbon transport. The Department has been working closely with ten local areas as they have looked at the problems they face and what package offers the best solution for their area. Greater Manchester and Cambridge have submitted Congestion TIF proposals to the Department. The authorities in the Bristol area have published their outline ideas for a TIF package and are working these up to submit early in 2008.
24. On our urban rail networks, the recent rail White Paper, Delivering a Sustainable Railway, committed the Government to implementing substantial investment to reduce crowding around major cities by ordering 1,300 new carriages between now and 2014. There will also be significant new infrastructure, for example at Reading and Birmingham New Street stations. The Thameslink project will be completed by 2015. We are also looking at how we can transform the rail network around Manchester to unlock more of the region’s economic power and address long-term capacity issues. Network Rail will undertake a study to establish what would be required to do this and this will involve partners throughout the north of England playing a key role in identifying needs. This investment is not being bought through any changes to fares policy. Rail fares where the industry has a monopoly position will continue to be regulated as now at 1 per cent over the rate of inflation each year, to support growth.
25. We have concluded a funding deal for the £16 billion Crossrail project, which will bring an estimated 1½ million more people to within 60 minutes of London’s key business areas and is expected to carry 200 million passengers a year by 2017. It will provide relief to hard-pressed commuters, support 30,000 jobs and sustain the City’s role as a world financial centre, which is critical to our national economy.
26. As Eddington recognised, however, investment alone will not be sufficient to deliver the step-change in transport that is needed in our congested urban areas. Local authorities and sub-regional groups of authorities also need the right powers to co-ordinate all the key parts of their transport network to deliver sustained improvements in reliability and capacity. For this reason, we are promoting the Local Transport Bill to improve local transport governance, as well as giving authorities powers to improve local bus services and to facilitate the introduction of local road pricing schemes alongside public transport improvements, in consultation with local people.
27. Urban areas will also have a role to play in reducing CO2 emissions. Since two-thirds of trips and over half of car journeys in the UK are less than five miles long, measures to change travel behaviour and reduce the need to travel in urban areas could bring significant benefits. This means that while central Government needs to set the framework on pricing and technology, there is a clear local role in encouraging modal-shift and reducing people’s need to travel. Achieving this will require sustained local action, which Government can support financially and via land-use planning. Initial results from the current Sustainable Travel Town and Cycling Demonstration Town projects show the effect that well-designed programmes of this kind can have on reducing CO2 and air pollutant emissions and improving quality of life.
28. In the recent rail White Paper, Delivering a Sustainable Railway, we set ourselves the long-term goal of doubling the level of demand rail can accommodate. A new generation of inter-city express trains will come into service from 2016, and we are supporting investment in in-cab signalling which will allow more trains to operate per mile of track. We are also supporting a strategic freight network which improves connections between regions and ports. And we expect to secure the 3 per cent reduction in accident risk and 92.6 per cent rail reliability target that were set out in the White Paper.
29. Improving reliability and tackling capacity constraints on the national network of motorways and other strategic roads poses a particular challenge against a background of escalating cost and legitimate environmental concerns. We do not need a roads programme anything like as ambitious as planners envisaged at the height of ‘predict and provide’ in the 1980s, but we do need targeted increases in capacity. We are spending £1.3 billion a year on this, with 23 schemes under construction now, and a further six (including key stretches of the M1, M25 and M62) due to start by April 2008.
30. We are also continuing to develop ways to make best use of the existing network. Alongside investments in infrastructure, the introduction of traffic officers, supported by a network of Regional Control Centres, has seen rapid improvements in the speed with which incidents are dealt on our strategic roads. And the ‘active traffic management’ (ATM) pilot on the M42, which uses the hard shoulder as an additional lane during the most congested periods of the day, supported by variable speed limits, has been highly successful.? We are now extending the system to the north (onto the M6) and also embarking upon a major feasibility study of the. potential for implementing advanced traffic management systems on a wider scale. Of course, there will always be some roads where widening is the best or only option, but in many cases ATM may be able to deliver increased capacity now at lower cost, with lower CO2 and air pollutant emissions from smoother traffic flows, more predictable journey times and safety benefits.
31. Urban congestion charging, backed by investment in public transport, is our priority. Therefore, whilst it is possible that road pricing could have the potential to be extended to include parts of the national networks, that is a decision for the future, to be informed by the development of local schemes, including London, and clear answers to the technological and system challenges.
32. It is on our inter-urban networks that measures relating to vehicle efficiency and fuel will have the greatest impact (though they will clearly also be relevant elsewhere). Fuel duty already sends a pricing signal about the 93 per cent of UK domestic transport CO2 emissions from road vehicles, and the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation will require five per cent of fuel sold on all forecourts to come from biofuels by 2010, leading to a estimated reduction in carbon emissions of about ¾ million tonnes per annum, supported by a sophisticated reporting system to ensure that biofuel production is, itself, sustainable.
33. More ambitiously, the King Review of low-carbon cars concluded in its interim analytical report that average per kilometre CO2 emissions from new cars could be 30 per cent lower than in 2000 within the next 10 years. By 2030, combined with greater use of biofuels and changes in consumer choices, this could help achieve a 50 per cent reduction in average per kilometre carbon emissions from cars across the UK fleet. In the long term, almost complete decarbonisation of road transport is a possibility if substantial progress can be made in solving electric vehicle technology challenges and, critically, the power sector can be decarbonised and expanded to supply a large proportion of road transport demand. That would mean around a 90 per cent reduction in per kilometre emissions would be achievable across the fleet. As a first step, we have taken the lead from Europe in securing from car-makers voluntary reductions in average CO2 emissions per new vehicle, whilst at the same time supporting research to improve engine efficiency and new fuels. We are now pressing for stretching mandatory medium-term reductions and have plans to press for emissions levels to be reduced still further thereafter. Additionally, we are working to bring in new European emissions standards relating to air pollutants that passenger cars, vans and HGVs will be required to meet before they can be placed on the market. These cleaner vehicles will also increasingly have positive carbon benefits.
34. At the international level, the big challenge in terms of CO2 emissions is growth in business travel by air (vital to our competitiveness) and leisure travel (important to people’s quality of life). That is why, with a strong UK lead, the EU has been promoting the inclusion of aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which would ensure that any growth in aviation emissions would have to be matched by a corresponding reduction from elsewhere within the trading scheme. By creating a price for carbon through placing a cap on total CO2 emissions, companies and individuals will need to decide how important to them their air travel is relative to other carbon uses. As Stern suggested, the Government is also looking at how it can accelerate behavioural and technological change in the aviation sector.
35. The Government’s other aviation priority over the period to 2014 will be delivery of the sustainable framework for the development of airports capacity set out in 2003 in The Future of Air Transport White Paper. This rejects a ‘predict and provide’ approach and sets a 30-year strategy to address the global and local environmental challenges, whilst allowing some growth in capacity, particularly in the congested south east of England. The demand forecasts factor in the likely impact of emissions trading. We will shortly be launching a consultation on adding capacity at Heathrow.
36. In the maritime sector, the recent planning decisions taken by the Government will see the greatest expansion in UK ports capacity for decades, with three substantial projects to deliver increased capacity for container ships being given planning approval at Felixstowe, Bathside Bay and London Gateway. We also recognise that shipping emissions are a major and growing issue, both in their greenhouse gas impact and for local air quality.
37. Nonetheless, as Eddington concluded, the current planning system for nationally significant infrastructure projects of this kind has often proved unpredictable and costly, and acted as a barrier to delivery. For this reason, the Government has published a White Paper, Planning for a Sustainable Future, with proposals to make the planning process for transport and other major infrastructure projects quicker, more efficient and more predictable, and to improve the accountability and transparency of the system. The proposed new regime would place the main responsibility for decisions on individual projects in the hands of a new independent Infrastructure Planning Commission, with Ministers’ key role being to develop National Policy Statements, following thorough and effective consultation, which will set out clearly the Government’s policy on infrastructure development in relevant sectors.
38. International passenger transport – particularly aviation – is also a primary terrorist target. September 11 made this an acute issue and the alleged plot to attack aircraft over the Atlantic in the summer of 2006 reaffirmed the terrorist interest. In an increasingly global security environment, it is becoming ever more important to adopt an international approach to transport security, where applicable across all the modes, making use of international negotiations to raise standards globally. In doing so, we must also take into account the security risks on other networks, and particularly in urban areas, where the 2005 London bombings clearly demonstrate the potential dangers we face.
39. Existing plans thus fit in many regards with the recommendations of Eddington and Stern. But it is important, if we are to secure the best sustainable improvements from our investment, that we apply the Eddington principle of giving priority to the interventions which are most cost effective in reaching our goals. In implementing the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement, therefore, we will be looking at all remaining uncommitted funding decisions to ensure that these are supported by reference to the goals we have identified and are consistent with the Eddington study and the Stern review. We will want to ensure that these are informed by any improvements in the evidence base developed more generally in the course of our implementation of the proposals set out in this document.
40. The investments made and policies pursued to 2014 will make a very substantial contribution to meeting our policy goals. But it is clear that some challenges will remain, and that long-term economic, technological and social changes will create new challenges to which we will need to respond.
41. We need to begin planning for the future now if we are to identify the right interventions and policies to respond to future challenges using the approach set out earlier. Planning and building new transport infrastructure can take as much as a decade or more, and delivering transport change is not quick. The introduction of 10-year funding guidelines for transport in 2000 gives the Department and its partners the ability to plan ahead with confidence. This year’s spending review provided for transport spend to increase by 2¼ per cent a year in real terms to 2018-19, meaning that Government expenditure on transport will have more than doubled in the 20 years from 1997-98. The spending plans for 2009-14 are in large part either committed or provisionally allocated, but we have very substantial scope for additional expenditure in 2014-19 and thereafter.
42. We will also face considerable pressures. Our plans to 2014 target some of the most pressing crowding and congestion problems, but they leave more to be done around some key cities and on the inter-urban networks. And the 240,000 new homes a year, announced in the housing Green Paper, will impose demands on local and regional transport networks, requiring us to ensure that transport impacts are managed so as to minimise emissions and improve quality of life. Transport partners at the local and regional level, other local authorities and delivery partners all need to be fully engaged in supporting the housing growth agenda.
43. We must therefore make sure that we achieve the greatest possible benefits from the public funding that is available. To do this, having set out our goals, we need to engage with stakeholders at an earlier stage than ever before to help identify the key transport challenges on local, national and international networks and the full range of potential options to address them. Two elements in the process of identifying challenges are, firstly, being clear about the transport outcomes needed to deliver our policy goals and how these are measured, and, secondly, completing a detailed geographical analysis of pressures on the transport system.
44. In doing so, we will need to tap into users’ experience of their end-to-end journey, so that we can focus our efforts on delivering the improvements that matter most to people. We also need to understand better how to make a reality of the prescriptions in Eddington and the Stern Review, and take account of the views not only of transport users, but also of local communities which are adversely affected by transport or have poor transport links.
45. Having understood people’s concerns and reflected them in our ‘challenges’, we must follow Eddington’s advice to “listen to the numbers”. The best transport solutions will be the ones that make the biggest contribution to our five goals per £1 of taxpayer funding. We are therefore updating our economic appraisal tool to ensure that it captures as many of the positive and negative impacts of transport as possible, giving each its due weight. Eddington was clear that improvements can be achieved through pricing, regulation and making better use of existing capacity. Infrastructure investment will sometimes be needed – but only if other options cannot solve the problem. He also stressed the importance of considering potential solutions across a range of transport modes. Government has to look at rail and road options for inter-city corridors, such as Manchester-Birmingham-London, alongside one another. And the benefits of joined-up planning at the city level have been clearly demonstrated by London. Finally, making the taxpayer’s pound go further will also mean giving fresh impetus to looking at ways of bringing in private sector funding.
46. Following this approach maximises our prospects of getting best value for money. To achieve this, we will improve our decision making, by bringing together as far as possible choices across networks and modes. Building on the success of the recent work to specify rail requirements over the next five years, the Government aims to extend the coverage of the work to drive the best decisions right across transport, leading to a clear cross-modal statement of requirements for 2014-19, to be decided by 2012. This will enable the Government, users and stakeholders at all levels to find the best solutions to our transport challenges. It will not, of course, be possible to align all decisions on one date, not least because some interventions have much longer time frames. Nonetheless, we believe a more transparent and cross-modal decision making process will deliver better transport.
47. We will consult formally on our proposed goals and challenges for 2014-19 next summer, and publish the results in a White Paper, together with guidance on option generation.
48. But formal consultation is only one way of ensuring that we understand the needs and priorities of the widest possible range of stakeholders, including not only the transport industry, but passengers and other transport users. Between January and April next year, our priority will be to engage widely with interested parties to refine our proposed goals and challenges. And ahead of that, we will be arranging a series of regional events with stakeholders to explain how they can contribute to transport planning all the way through to 2012. In this way, we will involve people in the transport decision making process at a much earlier stage than has been done before.
49. Ultimately, transport is about people – as transport users or consumers of goods, as affected communities, and as individuals concerned about social justice and the future of the planet. The tensions between these goals are not as unresolvable as they seemed in the past, but there are still balances to be struck. And the best way of ensuring that we strike the right balance is to start by listening carefully to what people have to say.
1.1 In the immediate post-war period, bus and bicycle were the main means of making local journeys, whilst rail dominated the market for longer-distance trips. Cars were a rare luxury, and fuel was rationed. By 1952, car ownership was on the increase, but public transport and cycling still accounted for most personal travel. Table 1.1 shows the dramatic growth in car’s market share (measured in passenger-kilometres) from 1952 to 1996.
Table 1.1: Passenger travel by mode, 1952 and 1996 (passenger kilometres)
| 1952 | 1996 | ||
| Bus and coach | 42% | Car, van and taxi | 87% |
| Car, van and taxi | 27% | Bus and coach | 6% |
| Rail | 18% | Rail | 5% |
| Pedal cycle | 11% | Pedal cycle | 1% |
1.2 People were not just changing their modes of transport. They were also travelling more often and for longer average distances. The total amount of travel undertaken in the UK more than trebled between 1952 and 1996, from 218 to 719 billion passenger kilometres.
1.3 Our shops began to stock a wider range of imported goods, and the balance of our economy shifted away from heavy manufacturing. These changes also had an impact on the level and pattern of transport demand. Road haulage increased and rail freight declined. Traffic through ports increased, and a growing proportion of goods arrived in containers.
1.4 The motorway era (beginning with the Preston Bypass in 1958 and the first stretch of the M1 in 1959) was both a necessary response to rising demand and a stimulus to further growth. Motorways were clearly needed to take pressure off trunk roads and the towns and villages through which they ran. But motorways also facilitated long-distance travel and the movement of freight by road.
1.5 The 1973 oil crisis drove up petrol prices. This increased the cost of motoring and made the Government more sensitive to the nation’s dependence on imported oil. It also did serious damage to the UK economy and public finances. The UK had to seek a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which came attached with conditions requiring public expenditure restraint. The pace of road-building slowed, and was subject to stop-go decisions in response to short-term changes in public finances.
1.6 But car-ownership and road-use continued to grow. People reorganised their lives around the car, and companies changed the way they did business. In their different ways, the ‘school run’, second home, out-of-town shopping centre and ‘just-in-time delivery’ concept are all predicated on cheap and easy road-use. There were some powerful economic and quality of life benefits to these changes, but some social costs – not least the increasing disadvantage at which households without cars were placed.
1.7 In 1989, the then Government was ready to re-embark on a large-scale roads programme. Its Roads to Prosperity White Paper promised 500 road schemes and was billed as “The biggest road-building programme since the Romans”. It came with a price-tag of £23 billion at 1989 prices (equivalent to about £40 billion today), but this was judged a necessary investment to address a demand-growth forecast of 142 per cent by 2025.
1.8 However, the programme encountered increasing environmental opposition. Protests focused primarily on adverse impacts on the countryside and quality of life (for example, impacts on wildlife, landscapes and noise) and on health (for example, the emission of air pollutants such as carbon monoxide and lead). But scientists had for some time warned of a more fundamental problem – the possible impact of human activities on climate change. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, CO2 emissions were seen as a sufficient risk to justify precautionary measures. As the scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of climate change grew, it became clear that more urgent and radical action was needed.
1.9 The growth in international transport was even faster than the growth in domestic transport. The volume of goods moving through ports continued to grow and so did the number of ships moving through our coastal waters. But the most dramatic growth was in aviation. The number of passengers travelling through UK airports increased 100-fold between 1950 and 2005, and air freight increased 70-fold. Globalisation of trade drove up business travel, whilst package-holidays and no-frills airlines opened up Europe and the world to people who had never been able to travel abroad before.
1.10 The transport history from the 1950s to the mid-1990s was dominated by a rapid growth in overall demand, and the decline of the most sustainable transport options – bus, cycle and rail. Since the mid-1990s, there have been some changes in transport trends, which are potentially very helpful.
1.11 Transport demand is still growing but the rate of growth has decelerated since the early 1990s relative to growth in GDP (as illustrated in Figure 1.1). Each percentage point increase in GDP is accompanied by a significantly smaller increase in the movement of goods and people than was the case when Roads to Prosperity was published.
1.12 Since the mid-1990s, rail travel has grown faster than road. Road’s market share peaked in 1996, which is why we have used that year in the table at paragraph 1.1. Rail is still a minority mode, and likely to remain so, because there are many types of passenger and freight movement for which it is not a viable option. But rail’s potential to provide a safer and lower-CO2 alternative to car and lorry is much greater than seemed possible even ten years ago.
1.13 London demonstrates what can be achieved by bringing cross-modal transport planning and spatial planning together, and by implementing a balanced package of interventions – investment in public transport, priority for buses and cyclists, a local freight strategy, and congestion charging. Between 1998-99 and 2005-06, bus use increased from 1.27 billion journeys a year to 1.81 billion, bucking the national trend. More trips are made by cycle and on foot, average traffic speeds in central and inner London have increased since 2003 (reversing a long-term trend) and road casualties across London have declined faster than in the rest of the country.
Figure 1.1: Growth in road passenger kilometres, freight tonne kilometres and GDP, Great Britain, 1980–2006
Source: DfT
1.14 The Government has taken a number of initiatives which have helped support these trends. The Ten Year Plan for transport, published in 2000, provided for the first time a committed stream of long-term funding, addressing the previous stop/start cycle which had blighted transport planning. While continuing to invest in roads, the Government has put much more emphasis on public transport. It has backed the railway financially and addressed the industry’s structural problems stemming from a flawed privatisation. And it created a single point of responsibility for transport in London, under an elected Mayor, replacing the patchwork of fragmented responsibility created by the abolition of the GLC.
1.15 Despite the slowing of the growth in overall transport demand and the rise in rail-freight and public transport use, the assumption is still often made that we face a stark choice. Since economic growth both requires and generates increased transport demand, we might seem to face a future in which we are either ‘rich and dirty’ or ‘poor and green’.
1.16 Two important studies commissioned by the Government move us away from this false dichotomy, and bring out the choices we really face in the 21st century.
1.17 The Stern Review on the economics of climate change says developed countries need to cut their CO2 emissions by between 60-80 per cent by 2050. Stern says there is an economic case for this, and perhaps a moral one. Unchecked global warming would not only lead to increased loss of land and life from flooding and rising sea-levels, but also to drought and malnutrition, and to the extinction of many species. It would also have a huge impact on the global economy. The option of being ‘rich and dirty’ does not really exist. But nor is it necessary to make ourselves poor in order to avert irreversible climate change. Reducing CO2 emissions does have an economic cost. But Stern estimates this at a global cost of 1 per cent of GDP, if we tackle the challenge in the most economically efficient manner, although for developed countries like the UK this cost could be higher. The Stern review is not about sacrificing all economic growth to reduce CO2, but about tackling climate change in the most cost-effective way possible, in order to deliver future economic and social objectives.
1.18 The Eddington study confirms that there is a vital link between transport and the economy. But he advocates a focused approach, targeted on congested and growing cities and their catchment areas, and key inter-urban links and international gateways where congestion poses the most serious threat to economic growth. He concludes that national connectivity is good, so there is no need to criss-cross the country with new links or to seek dramatic reductions in journey-times between cities. And he makes it clear that, whilst investment in new infrastructure will sometimes be the only answer to a transport problem, there are other options that should be explored – including pricing, regulation and traffic management, encouragement of smarter travel choices, travel planning and development of new technologies. Although Eddington is clear that transport capacity will have to increase, the study’s prescription is not for wholesale 1989-style tarmac-spreading.
1.19 This analysis, combined with the recent transport trends described in paragraphs 1.10 – 1.14, does not alter the fact that increased air, port, rail and road capacity will be needed to sustain economic growth. But it does mean that we need to ensure that transport supports all the key elements of sustainable development.
1.20 The challenge for Government is to frame a transport strategy that supports living within environmental means and sustaining a strong economy. In doing so, we must take account of the fact that the role of Government has changed significantly in recent decades.
1.21 At the high tide of nationalisation in the late-1970s, public sector bodies provided air, ferry, bus, coach, road haulage and rail services. They ran airports and ports. They built cars, ships and planes. Whitehall was directly or indirectly involved in decisions ranging from British Airways’ choice of aircraft to the level of fares set by the National Bus Company.
1.22 This picture has changed fundamentally. Transport services are now provided primarily by private sector businesses. Many key decisions on international aviation and shipping have long been taken by the relevant UN bodies, and decisions on the regulation of road and rail systems are increasingly taken at European level. Devolution means that Scotland and Wales largely plan their own transport networks. Transport for London is responsible for all transport within the Greater London boundary, other than motorways and national rail services. Outside London, local authorities and regional bodies are responsible for planning and procuring most transport services, and proposals in the Local Transport Bill would further the process of local devolution.
1.23 Government still has important roles. It specifies the passenger railway and national road network, has a funding role for local transport, takes decisions on whether or not to grant development consent for major infrastructure projects (though this role would change under the planning White Paper proposals), and can influence behaviour through regulation, taxation or information. But many of the key decisions that shape transport 30 years out are going to be taken by the European Union (EU) or by UN bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), in devolved administrations and town-halls, by businesses and by individual transport-users. This changes the nature of a national transport strategy.
1.24 It should also change the way in which we go about setting it – hence this document. Our aim is not just to set out how the Government sees Eddington and the Stern Review being implemented, but to start a process of engaging with stakeholders in a way that has not always underpinned previous Government-level transport planning.
1.25 At the end of this discussion document, Chapter 5 sets out the next steps, and explains how people can get involved in framing a future transport strategy. But, first, we set out our goals (in Chapter 2) and how our investment plans and policies will further them in the period to 2014 (Chapter 3), taking account of Eddington and the Stern Review’s analysis. Chapters 4 and 5 set out the new approach to transport planning that will drive the choice of actions to deliver the greatest overall improvement for the 2014-19 period and beyond.
2.1 Any effective strategy needs to start by being clear on the policy goals and the desired outcomes.
2.2 The economic and climate change agendas set out in the Eddington study and Stern Review must be central to any coherent transport strategy. But transport’s impacts extend well beyond GDP and CO2. All of these impacts need to be taken into account and given due weight in framing and delivering a transport strategy. This is important at the appraisal stage, when difficult choices have to be made about the best options to pursue. It is arguably even more important at the option-definition stage, to ensure that opportunities to further important policy goals are not inadvertently overlooked.
2.3 For the purposes of this discussion document, we have developed five very broadly defined goals, which capture the full range of Government objectives that could be furthered by transport. They seek to reflect the way in which transport affects people. Above all, they reflect the importance and degree of challenge for transport in the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. We believe that it will be critical in transport planning to think about a climate change goal separately, rather than as a sub-set of a broader environmental goal. It is also the reason why we have devoted more space in this chapter to climate change issues than would have been the case in the past.
2.4 These five goals are:
2.5 This chapter expands on these goals in turn. At the end of the chapter we look at how the goals fit together and how they link to the formal objectives set for the Secretary of State for Transport in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review.
2.6 In the long run, productivity growth is the key driver of wages, profits and ultimately prosperity and living standards. The Eddington Study drew together clear evidence that a comprehensive and high-performing transport system is a key enabler of sustained economic prosperity.
2.7 This is particularly important for the UK. As a trade dependent island, our prosperity turns on the ability to export services and high-value manufactured goods to pay for imports of essential raw materials and goods which other countries can produce at lower cost. The UK will have to achieve this in an increasingly competitive and globalised market. Failure to sustain GDP growth would mean lower earnings, a higher risk of unemployment and less funding available for public services.
2.8 The Eddington study reaffirms that transport is one of the keys to our continued economic success, and identifies seven ways in which reliable and efficient transport networks can promote increasing productivity and competitiveness. These are set out in the box below:
|
How transport impacts on the economy: By increasing business efficiency, through time savings and improved reliability for business travellers, freight and logistics operations. By increasing business investment and innovation by supporting economies of scale or new ways of working. By supporting clusters and agglomerations of economic activity. Transport improvements can expand labour market catchments, improve job matching, and facilitate business to business interactions. Transport’s contribution to such effects is most significant within large, high-productivity urban areas of the UK. By improving the efficient functioning of labour markets, increasing labour market flexibility and the accessibility of jobs. Transport can facilitate geographic and employment mobility in response to shifting economic activity, for example in response to the forces of globalisation, new technological opportunities, and rising part-time and female participation in the labour market. By increasing competition by opening up access to new markets. Transport improvements can allow businesses to trade over a wider area, increasing competitive pressure and providing consumers with more choice. By increasing domestic and international trade by reducing the costs of trading. By attracting globally mobile activity to the UK by providing an attractive business environment and good quality of life. |
2.10 The challenge is that in certain places the current capacity of networks cannot meet the demand that is, or will be, placed on them. In those circumstances, the inevitable result is congestion on some roads, overcrowding on some public transport links and lengthy queues at some airports. When networks are over-used, journey times lengthen and reliability suffers. Car journeys and road-freight movements become less predictable, trains and buses run late or are too crowded for passengers to get on, flights are delayed or cancelled because air traffic control slots are missed. This is not just a problem for the individual user. It causes cost and inconvenience to companies. Businesses will not locate in areas where access to suppliers or markets is unacceptably slow or unreliable or where they cannot attract the workforce they need. If we did nothing, this could ultimately become a brake on economic growth.
2.11 Eddington concluded that taking action to deal with those areas where unreliability, congestion and crowding are affecting businesses’ ability to meet with their clients or get their goods efficiently to market, or are preventing them from employing the best people for the job, should be a priority. The costs of transport problems of this kind are significant and real: the analysis carried out for the Eddington study showed that 8 per cent of UK road traffic is already subject to very congested conditions, and that, without action, congestion is likely to increase by a further 30 per cent by 2025. This increased congestion could see costs to business and freight rise by over £10 billion a year.
2.12 To tackle these problems, and reduce the cost of congestion and unreliability to the economy, he recommended that the focus should be on travel for work in the urban areas which make the biggest contribution to our economy and are experiencing the most rapid growth, on the inter-urban corridors between these cities and on the principal international gateways through which freight and business travellers pass. Evidence of economic and transport future trends and existing transport problems is the best way of deciding where to target interventions. This is the approach adopted in the rail White Paper, where decisions on where additional trains are needed are driven by the current level of crowding and medium-term demand forecasts. A similar approach is appropriate for roads, where Figure 2.1 highlights today’s congestion pinch-points.
2.13 For the medium to longer term, it is through the Regional Spatial Strategies, and the Regional Transport Strategies they include, that transport and land use will be integrated to help tackle some of the factors which contribute to increasing congestion. The amalgamation of Regional Spatial Strategies and Regional Economic Strategies proposed in the Sub-National Review will go further in integrating land use and economic development policies.
Figure 2.1: Congestion on the road network, Great Britain, 2003
2.14 The right action to address the congestion problem depends on what is causing it. If all modes are congested over a sustained peak period, the solution may well need to involve increased capacity. If the congestion is more localised or concentrated in a short peak period, or if some modes are congested whilst others have spare capacity, the solution is more likely to involve looking at relative prices and service patterns.
2.15 More generally, there is a strong message from Eddington that sending the right price signals to transport users is critical. The fact that people pay at the point of use for each air, bus or rail trip they make, whilst use of the road is seen as a ‘free good’, has an impact on how they choose to travel. And, as the Eddington study notes, using pricing signals to improve the way that existing capacity is rationed offers a number of benefits – not only can it reduce congestion, but it can do so in a way that is less damaging to the natural environment and more flexible than solutions based on new infrastructure.
2.16 The Government accepts the logic that we cannot simply ‘build our way out’ of congestion. So do many of the public, who regard congestion as an increasingly serious problem. And the congestion charge has been an essential element in the improvement of transport in London.
2.17 Attitudes to road pricing are more complex than is currently assumed. The latest Department for Transport attitude survey found that 55 per cent of adults agreed that the current system of paying for road use should be changed (so that the amount people pay relates more closely to how often, when and where they use the roads). The level of support increases to 62 per cent on the basis that any extra money raised is spent only on roads and transport. The survey confirms that there are still serious reservations in many people’s minds about the fairness and effectiveness of road pricing. Londoners (who have first-hand experience of a congestion charge) are more supportive of road pricing than people elsewhere. This reinforces the Government’s view that the best next step is to see whether road pricing is equally effective in other cities.
2.18 Action to address unreliability and crowding can also help to improve economic performance at the regional and sub-regional level, and may be able to make a contribution to achieving the Government’s goals to reducing GDP-growth disparity (as set out in paragraphs 2.78–2.79). Well-focused actions to address congestion blackspots have the potential to drive increased efficiency at the local and regional levels, as well as nationally – for instance, by enabling firms of all sizes to access a wider range of markets and employees. But it is important not to overstate transport’s ability to stimulate economic growth in under-performing areas, when in many cases addressing other factors such as skills shortages may have a much more decisive role to play.
2.19 Furthermore, while improving national competitiveness and productivity should be considered alongside the goal of addressing regional economic imbalance, it is important not to confuse the two. The Eddington test of focusing action on the most congested urban networks is likely to produce a different list of priorities from one based on stimulating economic growth in relatively deprived areas. It is important to look separately at how we deliver on national competitiveness and economic imbalance.
2.20 Climate change, as a result of rising greenhouse gas emissions, threatens the stability of the world’s climate, economy and communities. As noted in Chapter 1, the cost of early action is significant, but the costs of inaction could be far worse – temperature increases could lead to damages equivalent to as much as 5-20 per cent of global GDP.
2.21 Transport contributes about 15 per cent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and 23 per cent (by source) of UK domestic CO2 emissions. Urgent action to tackle transport emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is necessary and we are committed to doing so in a deliverable, measurable, and cost-effective manner.
2.22 The Climate Change Bill will set a long-term framework to cut total UK domestic CO2 emissions by 26-32 per cent by 2020, and by at least 60 per cent by 2050.We will also ask a new independent body, the Committee on Climate Change, to consider whether we should go further. Achieving these goals will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including transport. So within transport, we will identify robust emissions reduction pathways, starting domestically. We are also strongly arguing for an emissions trading policy which would mean that any future growth in emissions from international air journeys would be balanced by compensating reductions elsewhere.
2.23 We believe that transport represents an opportunity for significant carbon reductions, while continuing to support our economy and quality of life. This requires inter-governmental action on international transport, partnership working on local transport and changes in the behaviour of individuals and companies.
2.24 Figure 2.2 shows one possible scenario for how domestic emissions might reduce over the period to 2050. This was used in the Energy White Paper 2007 and estimates the most cost-effective pathway for each sector of the UK economy to an overall 60 per cent CO2 reduction. As this demonstrates, if we are to tackle carbon emissions cost-effectively, it is likely that different emitters and sectors will make different contributions to emissions reduction and to different timescales, and that flexibility will be required across the economy to enable us to respond to unforeseen challenges and opportunities.
Figure 2.2: UK MARKAL – Macro model – emissions reduction pathways by sector achieving a 60% reduction in total UK emissions by 2050
Source: Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy
(Cm 7124), May 2007
Note: Energy Sector includes electricity generation and
upstream oil and gas production
2.25 Current Government policies, as set out in the Climate Change Programme and the Energy White Paper, are expected to deliver a level of CO2 emissions that is broadly consistent with this scenario out to 2020. It may be possible, however, to achieve reductions to a more ambitious timescale. Since earlier reductions in emissions are more effective in reducing the risk of dangerous climate change, the Government is keen to explore this.
2.26 For example, a recent report by the Commission for Integrated Transport suggested another scenario with a different profile of costs, which could lead to transport emissions falling by 14 per cent against 1990 levels by 2020.
2.27 We intend, therefore, to look at the full range of options for putting transport on to a less carbon-intensive path, and to examine, for the first time, potential cost-effective emissions reduction pathways for different types of journey and different transport modes. In this way, we will be able to prioritise our efforts and achieve a clear understanding of the level and pace of emissions reductions that can be achieved.
2.28 Alongside this, it is also vital we ensure that our transport systems can adapt to those impacts of climate change which cannot be avoided, and that in doing so we minimise disruption, maintain high levels of safety and ensure transport’s continued contribution to the economy. The actions we are taking to achieve this are described in more detail in the next chapter.
2.29 Our starting point must be to take action now to tackle domestic emissions if transport is to maximise its contribution to our national CO2 reduction goals, particularly on road transport which currently produces about 93 per cent of all CO2 emissions from domestic transport – see Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: UK domestic transport sector CO2 emissions 2005
2.30 A core component of our strategy will be for the Government to continue giving price signals to encourage lower carbon transport. These can take a number forms.
2.31 Fiscal measures are one mechanism for doing this. For example Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) for cars is already banded according to CO2 emissions – the best-performing cars pay no VED at all and the most polluting pay more. Fuel duty also sends a signal to motorists that driving less fuel efficient vehicles will be more expensive. The Government also levies Air Passenger Duty on domestic flights (see paragraph 2.58 below). And we are improving the way we factor CO2 impacts into our appraisal process (see Chapter 4).
2.32 The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) will oblige fuel suppliers to source five per cent of fuels from renewable sources or pay a ‘buy-out’ price from 2010 onwards. In June this year the Government announced that from 2010 the RTFO would reward biofuels according to the carbon that they save. In addition, from 2011, the RTFO will only support those biofuels that meet appropriate sustainability standards. This, along with the sophisticated reporting mechanism for carbon savings and wider environmental impacts of biofuels, is a strong signal to stimulate markets for lower-carbon fuels.
2.33 Local road pricing schemes could have environmental benefits, such as reductions in emissions of CO2 and air pollutants, and we expect local authorities to assess what these may be as they develop packages combining local road pricing proposals with public transport improvements.
2.34 The application of technology will be critical in enabling transport to achieve any future pathway for CO2 reduction, and we see an important role for Government in setting the frameworks and incentives that will foster the promotion of lower carbon fuels and energy efficiency. With regards to road transport, the King Review recently suggested that new car CO2 emissions per kilometre can be cut by 30 per cent over the next 5–10 years. By 2030, combined with greater use of biofuels and changes in consumer choices, this could help achieve a 50 per cent reduction in average per kilometre carbon emissions from cars across the UK fleet.
2.35 For example, new cars in the UK are now around 12 per cent more fuel-efficient than in 1997, but we know more can be done. We are therefore pressing for demanding mandatory medium-term new car CO2 limits in Europe, and have plans to press for emissions levels to be reduced still further thereafter, which could lead to carbon reductions being delivered more quickly than indicated in current projections. We will also continue to facilitate research, development and demonstrator projects, including a new Innovation Platform to fund UK R&D into lower carbon vehicle technologies, and a new £20 million programme to support public procurement of innovative low carbon vehicles. The Energy Technologies Institute will also support technology development relevant to lower carbon transport fuels.
2.36 Support to technology development will stretch across all transport modes. In aviation we are supporting research in the UK through the National Aerospace Technology Strategy and at an EU level a major new Ä1.6 billion public/private “Clean Sky” initiative has recently been launched with participation from all the major parts of the European aeronautics industry. The rail industry is actively exploring options for reducing emissions, such as improved train design, greater use of regenerative braking and trialling of biofuel and hybrid trains. And in May 2007 we published a new report examining the technological options for reducing CO2 emissions from shipping.
2.37 It is not just in vehicle technology where opportunities are opening up to address our transport challenges and intelligent infrastructure may also have a significant role to play. For example in managing the roads programme, we are prepared to think in radical and innovative ways. Chapter 3 explains how, following the success of the pilot on the M42, we will examine how Active Traffic Management (ATM) could provide an alternative to conventional road widening in some places. This could potentially bring reductions in CO2 emissions, as well as reducing congestion, improving safety and improving air quality.
2.38 We also recognise the importance for achieving CO2 reductions of the travel choices made by individuals and business. We want to make it easier for people to make low carbon choices about how they travel.
2.39 Decisions about small, everyday journeys can make a big difference. 56 per cent of all journeys by car are less than five miles and 23 per cent are less than two miles. A recent CfIT study found that the UK ranked 12th out of 15 European nations in terms of the average distance people cycle each year and 14th on distance walked. The proportion of primary school children taken to school by car has remained above 40 per cent since 2002.
2.40 We see Government having a role in removing barriers that prevent people from using lower-carbon transport. The barriers may be that:
2.41 The Government will continue to address this at a number of levels. At one end of the scale, we make significant national investment in transport provision and a significant proportion of DfT’s budget is spent on rail and bus services. At a local level, support is provided for local integrated travel initiatives (such as ‘Sustainable Travel Town’ demonstrator projects, which have produced very promising early results). And initiatives such as ‘Bikeability’, and ‘Walking Buses’ operate at the other end of the scale, as does provision of information directly to individuals (for example, our ‘Act on CO2’ media campaign offers practical tips to drivers, which could potentially reduce CO2 emissions from cars by up to 8 per cent). Chapter 3 discusses these policies in more detail.
2.42 We believe that initiatives to address the obstacles to lower-carbon travel work best when pursued in parallel and we are encouraged that current congestion TIF bids include significant expansion of sustainable travel initiatives. As we learn more about what works, we want to ensure local authorities make low carbon travel a priority in their Local Transport Plans, Local Area Agreements and Local Development Frameworks. These priorities will be reflected in the Government’s new national indicators for local authorities.
2.43 Urban areas cannot be re-engineered overnight to reduce the need to travel – it will take decades. But it is important to make a start now. Paragraph 3.15 explains how we will be taking this process forward.
2.44 Finally, companies too have a role to play in cut transport CO2 emissions. For some time, pursuing reductions in CO2 has figured on the corporate social responsibility agenda, and there is a growing recognition that reductions in CO2 make sound commercial and financial sense as well. Government, too, will need to ensure the sustainable operations of its estate.
2.45 As a trade-dependent island, aviation and shipping are crucial to the UK economy. Our hugely successful financial services industry, and our position as a world centre of academic excellence, also rely on connectivity with the rest of the world. But, as world trade grows, it is important to tackle the growing climate change consequences of air and sea transport.
2.46 Individuals and businesses have choices about international transport, just as they do about domestic transport. Technology means that face-to-face meetings for non-essential business purposes can be replaced by modern communication tools. But evidence suggests that international travel is one of the forms of personal mobility that people value most highly, whilst there is an irreducible core of business travel that is critical to our international trade.
2.47 The Government supports work to investigate how emissions from air and sea transport can be reduced through improved technology and better operating practices. For example, in aviation we welcome the work being done by the Omega Partnership of leading academics on technological solutions to the environmental impacts of global aviation.
2.48 We must explore what more can be done. For example, worthwhile reductions in emissions could be achieved if the holding ‘stacks’ above congested airports could be removed. This would require careful examination to ensure that safety and runway capacity were not compromised. We will also consider whether emissions might be reduced if the allocation of newly-created slots for take-off and landing could be designed to reflect the environmental performance of aircraft. This approach to slots has not been tried before and we will work with airports, airlines and regulators to examine its practicality and effectiveness, including compatibility with the EU Regulations which determine slot allocation.
2.49 These challenges on the scope for behavioural and technological change mean that getting the price signals right on international transport is particularly important.
2.50 Because the international transport sector is governed by global rules, treaties and laws, we must work to address this challenge together with the international community. In March 2007, the European Council agreed to reduce EU domestic CO2 emissions from all sources by 20 per cent in 2020 compared to a 1990 baseline – a reduction from 5.9 billion tonnes of CO2 to 4.7 billion tonnes. Over the same period, and without any other action, CO2 emissions from EU aviation (including all flights departing and arriving in the EU) are forecast to rise from around 0.1 billion tonnes[1] in 1990 to 0.4 billion tonnes in 2020. At that point, they would account for 8 per cent of EU total emissions.
2.51 Considering this growth, we are taking steps towards bringing international aviation within the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
2.52 Encouraged by the UK, in December 2006 the European Commission proposed a new Directive to include air transport in the EU ETS which would:
2.53 This would ensure that, although aviation is expected to continue to grow as our economy expands and people become more wealthy, this growth will not result in any overall growth in carbon emissions. Across Europe, the Emissions Trading Scheme would require that each extra tonne of carbon from aviation must be matched by a tonne saved somewhere else – a saving over and above existing targets.
2.54 In effect, aviation emissions would be stabilised at 2004-2006 levels, as summarised in the table below. The table shows how aviation emissions would be capped at 0.2 billion tonnes of CO2, i.e. the average for the period 2004-2006; a further 0.2 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions arising from growth in air transport will have been matched by a corresponding reduction of 0.2 billion tonnes of CO2 from elsewhere within the trading scheme.
Table 2.1: Impact on C02 of including aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme| 1990 Emissions (BtCO2) | 2005 Emissions (BtCO2) | 2020 target (BtCO2) | |
| Total EU domestic emissions – EU25 | 5.9 | 5.0 | 4.7 |
| International aviation (total all arriving and departing flights) | c.0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Total | 6.0 | 5.2 | 4.9 |
2.55 The great benefit of this approach is that it allows CO2 reductions to be made at the least cost to the UK economy, and ensures emissions do not exceed the level set by the overall limit. It will also make consumers aware of the costs of their flying decisions, since the CO2 cost will be reflected in the ticket price.
2.56 Aviation’s climate change impact is greater than the sum of its CO2 emissions alone, although the scale of this additional impact is subject to considerable scientific uncertainty. The application of a “multiplier” to take account of such non-CO2 effects (or the full ‘radiative forcing’) is an illustrative way of taking account of the full climate impact of aviation. However, a multiplier is not a straightforward instrument. The EU proposal is for the Emissions Trading Scheme to cover CO2 only, in line with the existing Scheme covering other sectors. However, we recognise that we must take into account the full climate impacts, and we support the European Commission’s commitment to bring forward a proposal next year to address nitrogen oxide emissions from aviation.
2.57 Whilst the emissions trading scheme mentioned above shows strong EU leadership, the best way forward in this international area is through genuine global action. We have been pressing for progress in ICAO and in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), but do not believe that these bodies have yet provided comprehensive solutions that respond to the challenge of climate change. Action at the European level therefore enables the UK to show leadership and take practical steps forward.
2.58 Agreement on the final scheme should be reached by mid-2008. However, the Government has always maintained the position that there is a role for taxation alongside the EU Emissions Trading Scheme to ensure the industry pays its environmental costs and also pays its fair share in contributing towards the Government’s spending priorities, including public transport and the environment. The proposed change to Aviation Duty announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9 October – switching from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty – will seek to correlate the duty more closely to distance travelled and to encourage operators to fill their aircraft.
2.59 Domestically, we will ask the Committee on Climate Change to look at the implications of including international aviation in the UK’s targets as part of its overall review of the 2050 target, on which it is due to report in autumn 2009. In addition, once the EU ETS rules have been finalised, we will also ask the Committee for advice on whether there is a methodology for including international aviation emissions in our domestic targets under the Climate Change Bill, as well as of the impacts of adopting it. This would also need to be workable and compatible with the EU ETS, taking account of progress under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the wider international context.
2.60 Maritime transport emissions also require international agreement. The UK is working within the IMO to ensure that strong action is taken on shipping’s contribution to climate change. Some states do not share our objectives or are fearful of the impact that any measures might have on their economies. We are working to persuade these states that the costs of deferring action far outweigh the costs of taking decisive action now. At our urging, the next meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee in March 2008 will consider a range of possible technical, operational and market-based measures.
[1] Estimate. Actual data for EU-wide aviation CO2 emissions in 1990 is not available.
2.61 There has always been a strong focus in transport planning on reducing risks to transport users, workers and third parties from transport accidents. And that will remain. But there are many other ways in which transport can impact on people’s life expectancy and physical well-being.
2.62 In terms of accident risk, the high-level picture is that:
Figure 2.4: Passenger fatality rates in air, rail, motor vehicles: 1980 to 2005
Source:
*Data prior to 2000 for rail is financial years
2.63 We believe the Government’s objective should be to reduce accident-risk across all modes of travel, with a particular emphasis on deaths on the road. This is likely to require a wide range of interventions, addressing key problem areas of bad driver behaviour, drink driving, excessive speed and seat-belt wearing. Key groups of vulnerable road users will continue to need to be targeted, including motor cyclists, young drivers and those who drive for work. We will also collaborate with our Agencies, local authorities, the police and others to bear down on the minority who flout their legal obligations on the roads, adding to the costs and risks faced by the law-abiding majority.
2.64 The sources of accident-risk differ widely between transport modes, but we need to take an across-the-board look at how risk is assessed and safety is handled. For example, our road safety targets are expressed in terms of seeking improvements on historic performance, whilst the rail and London Underground networks express safety performance in terms of risk.
2.65 We are also committed to protecting people travelling and transport facilities against the growing range of threats from terrorists. To do so, we need to further develop risk-based regimes, which deliver security and maintain public confidence, but do not stop transport systems operating effectively. Where we need to work internationally to specify these regimes, we will do so, and ensure that they are set at the right level. At home, we will work with stakeholders to strengthen security in ways that minimise as far as possible disruption to travellers and do not unnecessarily impair people’s confidence in the safety of transport or the convenience of travel.
2.66 There has been a huge reduction in some of the negative impacts of transport on health and life expectancy, including the virtual elimination of emissions of carbon monoxide and lead. The priority challenges going forward are to improve air quality still further by reducing transport-related emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter. There is also a need to address the risk to public transport users from epidemics or pandemics. And there are difficult issues, such as the indirect impact of transport on health via stress that need more in-depth investigation.
2.67 There is also a positive side to the transport-health issue, which we should be promoting. The health benefits of cycling and walking are clear-cut. And research suggests that public transport users have a longer life-expectancy than people who travel only by car. In addition, these forms of transport can contribute to reducing levels of air pollutant emissions, which are damaging to health. There are also some important synergies here with the climate change agenda.
2.68 We need to look at the risks across the modes in different ways. We need to review whether we are assessing risk in a consistent way and whether our data support the way we deal with those risks. A joined-up approach to safety, security and health is desirable for two reasons. It is right to factor all the positive and negative impacts into calculations of value for money. And, at the practical level, it is much better to engineer safety/security/health into the design of a train or airport upfront than to retrofit later. The recent rail White Paper said “a key objective for the rail industry over the period of this strategy is to recognise safety, passenger security and well-being as a single agenda and to deliver continual improvement”. That conclusion extends to transport generally, and to those who live or work near to transport networks as well as those who use them.
2.69 Transport impacts on people’s quality of life in many ways.
2.70 The negative impacts are often obvious and can be very significant for the environment and people’s well-being. They include the noise and vibration of road, rail and air traffic, the loss of wildlife habitats and countryside, the visual intrusiveness of roads and railways, and oil-spills on beaches. That is why we are a key formal delivery partner with Defra in the Delivery Agreement supporting the Government’s PSA target for a healthy natural environment for today and the future. Areas that have been designated as important sites for nature conservation purposes, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Areas, benefit from a high level of statutory protection to ensure their conservation value is protected and enhanced. In addition, the Government is preparing strategic noise maps and action plans under the Environmental Noise Directive, to help manage noise and reduce it as necessary, and will consult shortly on a Noise Strategy. The likelihood is that, as society becomes more affluent, people will become less tolerant of adverse impacts on their quality of life.
2.71 The positive impacts are more diffuse, and tend to be taken for granted. They include the range of goods on supermarket shelves, the ability to visit friends and relatives, enjoyment of the countryside and seeing the world. These are things that people clearly set a high value on, and which transport must continue to deliver for them. Our carbon-reduction agenda, in particular, needs to take account of these aspirations.
2.72 It is also clear that transport users have rising expectations. People will progressively demand higher standards of comfort, convenience and customer service, as well as improvements in quality of information. Customer-focus is primarily a matter for transport providers, but not wholly. There are limits to what a station or airport operator can do to improve the passenger’s lot if capacity is inadequate. There is a need (which Government can facilitate) to think about journeys in end-to-end terms. And the Government is, itself, committed to transforming the way it does business with its customers. The Department for Transport is expanding its range of online services to make it easier to tax a car, register a ship or book a driving test. The Transport Direct website provides a journey planning service which helps people find the quickest, cheapest or lowest-CO2 option for their trip. The Highways Agency will make wider use of mobile technology to keep drivers up to date on delays and is developing a digital traffic radio station.
2.73 It is important that – in the drive for sustained GDP growth, CO2 reduction and an improvement in average quality of life – we do not lose sight of the needs of disadvantaged areas or least mobile people.
2.74 The Government is committed not only to improving economic performance in all English regions, but to reducing the persistent gap in growth rates. Average household income (adjusted for cost-of-living) varies from £18,800 in the North East to £26,100 in the South East and £29,200 in London, and there are also wide divergences on unemployment and other measures. There are pockets of deprivation in even the most affluent areas. And there are individuals in all areas whose life-prospects are relatively poor. There are also specific transport issues for rural areas in general and for isolated communities in particular.
2.75 Tackling disadvantage in local areas is a Government priority, delivered primarily by local authorities, who best understand the needs of neighbourhoods and of sections of their community. Transport can contribute to achieving wider aims, which will need to be considered as authorities prepare their Sustainable Community Strategies, Local Area Agreements and Local Development Frameworks. The Department for Transport is committed to enhancing access to jobs, services and social networks, including for the most disadvantaged, and will provide advice and assistance to authorities as they plan how best to achieve their goals.
2.76 Accessibility is not simply a transport issue. It is about the range of opportunities and choices that people have in connecting with jobs, services and friends and families. Their level of access will depend on where people choose to live, where services are located, the availability of ‘home delivery’ of goods or services such as medical care, and the availability and affordability of transport. Improving accessibility can be achieved through one or a mixture of these. Different social groups have different transport needs and priorities. For example, good access to healthcare is particularly important for those with children and for older people. People with disabilities are less likely to drive and more likely to be dependant on public or community transport, or lifts from family and friends. In some rural areas access to a car can be crucial to maintaining accessibility. Table 2.2 summarises some of the key accessibility issues identified with stakeholders (it is important to stress that not all members of a ‘target group’ will have the transport issues mentioned).
2.77 Transport providers are generally well aware of the particular needs of disabled users. The projected ageing of the population provides an additional challenge and incentive to focus harder on the needs of users with a range of mobility issues. The number of people aged over 65 will increase from 8 million to 11 million by 2024, and the proportion of the population aged over 85 will more than double.
Table 2.2: Groups most vulnerable to poor accessibility
| Target group | Transport issues |
| Low-income | Low travel horizons, fear of crime on public transport, some require help with travel costs to work to support job retention and address in-work poverty. |
| Job-seekers | Require support with job search activities and to prevent transport being a barrier to employment. |
| Some low-income parents | Access to social and cultural networks, healthcare and healthy food shops for parents and families at risk of social exclusion. |
| Low-income rural households | Transport-related exclusion in rural areas regarding access to employment, healthcare, healthy food shops, education and social and cultural networks. |
| Disabled working-age adults | Transport-related exclusion for disabled adults; current multiple forms of transport assistance; to give additional help to job search activities for disabled people. |
| Disabled children and young people | Assistance needed for families to avoid transport-related exclusion for disabled children and young people. |
| Older people with limited mobility | Appropriate transport for older people with limited mobility and at risk of social exclusion. |
| Black and minority ethnic groups | Some groups more likely to be low-income; socio-cultural barriers sometimes a barrier to travelling and using public transport. Some groups likely to be fearful of using public transport because of personal security issues. |
2.78 At the level of regional inequality, the Government has formal goals on reducing GDP-growth disparity. Transport’s principal contribution to these is likely to come from tackling emerging congestion problems on national and urban networks, in line with the Eddington principles. The emphasis will be on reducing inequality of outcome (in terms of levels of crowding or reliability, for instance), rather than on inputs or levels of expenditure. Regional input to transport decisions under the Regional Funding Allocation mechanism will continue, and the emphasis given by the Regional Development Agencies to the importance of good rail connections to ports played an important part in the Government’s decision to support a strategic freight network.
2.79 The benefits of creating jobs in regeneration areas should be scored in the value-for-money assessment – provided, obviously, that this is not at the expense of other regeneration areas. In this respect, one of the aims of our engagement process will be to strengthen our evidence base, and we will want to draw on work of bodies like Northern Way, whose strongly evidence-based approach has resulted in a better understanding of how connectivity impacts on economic growth in the north.
But, at the same time, there are some important messages in the Eddington study about not exaggerating transport’s ability to stimulate job creation. Unless adequacy of skills and other issues are properly addressed, improved transport connections could as easily suck employment from an area as create new jobs in it. Transport measures are most likely to help when they are part of a locally co-ordinated package of initiatives, of the sort that the measures in the local government White Paper aim to promote.
2.80 These five goals capture the range of ways in which transport can affect people’s lives – both positive, by supporting the economy and enabling them to visit friends and relatives and travel the world, and negative, by contributing to climate change and through pollution and accidents.
2.81 In doing so, the goals incorporate the four specific Government objectives set in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review for which the Department for Transport was assigned delivery responsibility for 2008-11 – contributing to sustaining economic growth through reliable and efficient transport networks; improving the environmental performance of transport and tackling climate change; strengthening the safety and security of transport; and enhancing access to jobs, services and social networks, including for the most disadvantaged. These objectives will be central to driving the Department’s business over the CSR years. But the five goals also acknowledge that the transport system contributes to other policy goals (for example, health and regional economic growth and the Government’s work on noise mapping and action planning) for which other Departments have lead responsibility.
2.82 Integrating these different agendas into a clear set of goals is vital to effective long-term planning. Unless we consider the widest range of transport’s impacts it is likely that our policies will have unforeseen, and potentially damaging, consequences. Having done so, the next stage in the strategic process is to identify the challenges to achieving those goals, and the best policy mix to address them. In some cases, this will be able to contribute to every one of the five, but in others, informed trade offs may need to be made.
2.83 In Figure 2.5 we set out our initial assessment of some of the most important challenges. These are described in more detail in Annex A. As set out in Chapter 5, we want to listen to users, passengers and other stakeholders to develop it further.
2.84 The next chapter sets out the Department for Transport’s current policy framework over the period to 2013-14 and the actions we will take, together with our delivery partners at home and abroad, to respond to the most urgent challenges. Then Chapter 4 sets out how we will develop our longer-term strategy to ensure an even closer focus on achieving our goals.
[Click to enlarge]
3.1 Decades of under-investment diminished the quality of our transport infrastructure. The Government has shown its commitment to redressing this through sustained increases in transport funding, with a 70 per cent increase in funding in real terms since 1997, and a long-term guideline for transport spending provided by the recent Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), which grows at 2¼ per cent per annum in real terms to 2018-19.
3.2 Figure 3.1 shows the total provision set by the CSR, together with the allocation (relatively firm for early years, but indicative for later years) between transport ‘markets’. There is considerable financial ‘headroom’ beyond 2013-4, and the following chapters explain how we intend to take decisions on the spending and policy priorities for that period.
Figure 3.1: DfT Transport Spending Programmes and the Long Term Funding Guideline (illustrative)
Source: DfT
3.3 This chapter summarises our ambitious expenditure and policy plans through to 2013-14. They support the five goals in Chapter 2 and are informed by the analysis in the Eddington study.
3.4 In framing our plans to 2013-14, we have first to make provision for essential and committed expenditure – maintaining national and local roads in decent condition, supporting passenger rail services, funding local authority and Transport for London investment plans. In determining the indicative allocation of discretionary funding, we seek to follow Eddington’s advice by focusing on secti