Supplementary memorandum by the Minister
for Transport (AP 02)
When I appeared before the Transport Sub-Committee
on 12 December 2001, I promised various additional information
on a number of points, notably:
PPG13Car parking space requirements.
Recent trends of bicycle purchases.
Proportion of new homes to be car-free
Whether Inland Waterways were included
in the 2000-01 Annual report.
The sources of congestion reduction.
Rail passenger increase target.
Clarification of transport model
DTLR understanding of the role of
fuel prices can have in reducing traffic growth.
I attach the required clarifications. I trust
that this additional information will prove satisfactory. I will
be happy to clarify further any of the answers given.
1. Why the Government relaxed the maximum
parking space requirements for commercial developments in the
final version of PPG13?
PPG13 was issued in October 1999 as a consultation
draft, seeking views on the proposals. We received a wide range
of responses, raising some important issues that we needed to
ensure we had taken fully into account. In the final version of
PPG13, modifications were made to the maximum parking standards
and the way they are applied to take account of concerns expressed
by business and to ensure that the guidelines help promote investment
in town centres.
2. Recent trends of bicycle purchase in the
At the moment the bicycle trade does not have
a mechanism for accurately and regularly measuring bike sales.
However, rough estimates by trade associations suggest that, while
sales over the last five years have shown an increasing trend,
during the past year sales have fallen by approximately 15 per
3. What proportion of the new homes forecast
to be built by 2016 will be car-free developments?
The Government's planning policies for housing
(set out in PPG3) require local authorities to revise their parking
standards to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street
parking provision in new development than has been the case in
recent years. Developers are no longer expected to provide more
car parking than they or potential occupiers might want, nor to
provide off-street parking when there is no need, particularly
in urban areas where public transport is available or where there
is a demand for car-free housing.
PPG3 expects parking policies to be framed with
good design in mind, recognising that car ownership varies with
income, age, household type and the type of housing and its location.
Local planning authorities are encouraged to allow housing developments
with limited or no off-street car parking in areas with good public
transport accessibility and where effective on-street parking
control is present or can be secured.
We do not have estimates of how many homes are
expected to be provided in car-free developments but PPG3 points
out that car parking standards that result, on average, in development
with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling
are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing
sustainable residential environments.
4. Why Inland Waterways were not included
in the year 2000-01 Annual Report when they were still the responsibility
of the then DETR
Inland Waterways were covered in the 2001 Annual
Report on page 72, paragraphs 3.93 to 3.97.
My Department will continue to be closely involved
so far as the transport role of Inland Waterways is concerned.
The transport potential of waterways was addressed in the policy
documents "Sustainable Distribution : a Strategy" published
in 1999 and "Waterways of Tomorrow", published in 2000
as "daughter documents" of the Integrated Transport
The 10 Year Plan for Transport included the
aim of increasing the proportion of water-borne freight and identified
the potential for increased traffic on some of our larger navigable
rivers and canals, as well as the tidal stretches of our major
rivers. It also set out the intention to enhance the existing
freight facilities grant scheme covering Inland Waterways and
to extend it to cover short sea shipping. My Department remains
responsible for administering that scheme, which is funded through
the resources allocated in the 10 Year Plan, as well as for ports
and shipping policy generally.
5. What proportion of congestion reduction
comes from urban pricing schemes (congestion charging and workplace
parking levy) and what proportion comes from expansion of the
existing road network?
In the supporting analysis to the 10 Year Plan,
we published some analysis of the impacts of the individual Plan
components. This showed the impact of trunk road investment but
included charging schemes as part of the local transport measures.
We have therefore undertaken some additional analysis of the effect
of these schemes.
Our analysis showed that, if other Plan measures
were in place, the Plan's investment in the trunk road network
could contribute a further reduction in congestion of up to 10
per cent of the total vehicle hours saved by the Plan.
6. For the 50 per cent increase in rail passengers,
what proportion of the increase is entirely new trips and what
proportion is derived from mode shift?
In preparing the 10 Year Plan, our analysis
forecast that rail demand would increase by 28 per cent over the
period 2000-10 as a result of external factors such as economic
growth. All this increase was assumed to be new trips.
Of the additional 22 per cent growth to be generated
by rail specific factors such as changes in fares, service quality
improvements and enhancements to the network, some two-thirds
was estimated to come from car users switching to rail, except
for London commuter routes where the figure is one-third.
7. Could you please clarify that the modelling
figures presented in the Plan correspond to the same start date
as the financing of the Plan (May 2001)
The transport model used a base year of 2000.
This provided the base conditions against which to assess the
plan. The start date for the investment plan was April 2001.
The model 2000 run assumes no 10 Year Plan spending.
The run for 2010 assumes all relevant plan spending has come into
effect. In other words, the precise dates of investment are not
used in the modelling, only their impacts at the end of the plan
The difference, in terms of transport impacts,
between the calendar years used in the modelling and the financial
years used in the investment plan are minimal in terms of the
level of precision at which the model works.
8. Whilst the Treasury is the lead department
concerning fuel taxation, please can you indicate the Department
of Transport, Local Government and the Regions understanding of
the role that fuel prices can have in reducing traffic growth
DTLR recognises that fuel prices (of which fuel
duty comprises the largest proportion) have an influence on vehicle
traffic. Higher fuel prices will increase the cost of vehicle
travel per kilometre and can therefore be used as a tool to reduce
traffic growth. There is evidence that the increases in fuel prices
from 1996 to 2000 did reduce traffic growth during this period.
This relationship between fuel price and traffic
levels can be expressed as an "elasticity".
For the 10 Year Plan, DTLR used a car fuel cost elasticity of
-0.23. This means that a 10 per cent increase in car fuel cost
per kilometre is expected to lead to a 2.3 per cent reduction
in the national total of car kilometres driven. Changes in other
relevant variables such as national income and car ownership can
alter the relationship between fuel prices and road traffic levels.
DTLR's current model also suggests that fuel cost elasticity for
HGVs is much smaller (in absolute value) that than for cars.
The DTLR has recently commissioned two separate
reviews of the latest evidence on the impact of fuel costs on
traffic so that the models can be updated with the latest available
1 These were based on the traffic data for 1996, forecasted
forward to an average day for 2000-01, as year 2000-01 data was
not available when the plan was developed in 2000. The model is
currently being updated for the review of the plan, to use data
for 2000-01, now that this data is available. Back
The change in one variable with respect to change in another. Back