Memorandum by Greenspeed (RP 22)
ROAD PRICING: SHOULD ALL ROADS BE TOLL ROADS?
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Speed is regarded almost exclusively
as a road safety issue (eg Road Traffic Speed Select Committee
Ninth Report of Session 2001-02). In fact all aspects of the transport
system are interrelated and traffic speeds have a number of important
impacts as well as the death and injury of car users and non-car
users. As one of the well known advantages of lower speed is the
reduction of congestion, when the Government is looking for a
strategy to deal with this problem, close attention has to be
given to the national speed limits of 70 mph and 30 mph.
1.2 For whatever reason, and despite widespread
concern that our transport system is failing to deliver on all
its objectives, the impact of traffic speeds has escaped analysis
in a way that could have been helping Government decision makers.
The particular method of inquiry represented by the Transport
Committee can assist Parliament and Government Departments and
this memorandum has been prepared to assist the Committee pointing
to some of the already well known facts about speed and goes on
to make suggestions about the very important cumulative effects
of lower speed limits.
1.3 Whatever the findings of the Committee,
a policy or programme of Road Pricing cannot be introduced before
it has been subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment in accordance
with the European Directive. The DfT are under the misapprehension
that an SEA will only be required when Road Charging becomes its
policy. SEA should of course be part of the feasibility study
that the DfT are undertaking. The Committee should be aware that
under the ODPM guidelines, the SEA would involve a consideration
of alternative methods of dealing with congestion. It would also
involve looking at the synergistic effects of all measures designed
primarily to deal with congestion. In the absence of an SEA to
analyse this issue, the Transport Committee has been most prescient
in including the question: Are there other measures which could
reduce congestion more effectively? And this is the question addressed
in this memorandum looking at some of the effects of lower speeds
as an alternative or complement to road pricing and going on to
explore the synergistic effects (virtuous circles) that will become
clearer when an SEA is commissioned.
2. TRAFFIC SPEED
AND CONGESTION
2.1 It is already well established that
lower speeds reduce congestion. However, despite a 10 year correspondence
between Greenspeed and the DfT (research budget £40 million)
on the wide ranging benefits, including reduced congestion, that
would flow from reducing the national speed limits, the Minister
and officers at the DfT persist with the mantra that the existing
limits represent the "best balance". The DfT refuse
to explain on what if any social, economic or environmental criteria
70/30 is better than 55/20. The existing models of the national
transport system has not been used to show what effect a reduction
in the national speed limit would have on the overall level of
congestion.
2.2 There is no assistance available from
other likely organisations. The Commission for Integrated Transport
say that it " . . . has not undertaken any research on this
issue", but this has not stopped them becoming strong advocates
of road pricing. The leftward leaning IPPR produce a report "Putting
the Brakes on Climate Change" strongly supports road pricing
as an answer to congestion but makes no mention of its regressive
impact or of the benefits of lower speeds. The head of research
into safety and the environment at the TRL says that this, "
concerns matters outside my responsibility".
2.3 In these circumstances it is fortunate
that very little if any further research is necessary into the
benefits of lower speeds. Starting with the impact of speed on
inter-urban roads, there are existing examples of 50 mph speed
limits imposed as traffic volumes build up so as to avoid or reduce
congestion. The most well known example is the very heavily used
M25. At 50 mph (happily close to the optimal speed for fuel consumption
of the current generation of cars) traffic flows more smoothly
and each car requires less road space. The same effect would be
seen in urban areas, as stopping distances reduce and junction
capacities increase with lower speeds. Even with no reduction
of traffic volumes, lower speeds can have a remarkable effect
on reducing the level of congestion. For other reasons, to do
with the virtuous circles triggered by lower speeds, traffic volumes
are actually likely to reduce and road congestion will be a phenomenon
related only to traffic incidents and not a part of everyday travel.
2.4 The great attraction of lower speeds
as an answer to congestion is that it does not discriminate against
those less able to pay. It is unfortunate that the agenda for
the Transport Committee does not specifically mention the issue
of social inclusion. Unless research can show this not to be the
case, it seems that road pricing will result in "roads for
the rich". Again, unless research can show this not to be
the case, it is likely that the rich will use the freedom of the
road to travel further and faster. The extra distance travelled
and extra speed would reduce if not cancel out any possible environmental
benefits for reducing traffic volumes. The traffic that can afford
to use the M6 Toll average 76 mph, wasting fuel and emitting extra
CO2. This toll road may have reduced congestion on this short
section of the M6 corridor but may even have increased congestion
elsewhere.
2.5 The introduction of lower speed limits
could be extremely cheap and need not be delayed. The M25 already
represents the pilot or experiment and variable introduced on
a local and piecemeal basis will involve significant costs (not
compared to the £20 billion estimate for road pricing) in
signage and enforcement. Variable speed limits also lead to confusion,
anger drivers and present difficulties with enforcement. Just
as modern cars have top speeds suitable for German Autobahns,
if the 70 mph limit is maintained car design will not make the
changes necessary to an integrated and sustainable transport system.
2.6 The main difficulty in the enforcement
of speed limits starts with the widespread disobedience. This
stems from drivers believing that speed is an issue of safety
and that they can judge what is safe in the circumstances. If
it was accepted that speed is important to an integrated and sustainable
transport system, including fuel consumption and emissions drivers
may pay more respect. However, the other main cause of disobedience
will also be reduced as car technology adapts to the lower maximum
speed limit. Cars designed for a maximum of 55 mph are more easily
driven at 20 mph in urban areas. Finally, when the importance
of speed management is recognised as an essential element to the
working of the whole transport system, strict enforcement will
still be necessary.
Recommendation: That lower national speed limits
should be introduced with the minimum of delay to deal with congestion.
Road pricing can then be considered if and when it may be justified
to address residual and localised problems.
3. CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS
3.1 Creating "roads for the rich"
by pricing smaller and more efficient vehicles off the road will
reduce congestion on those parts of the road system on which it
is introduced. Larger cars being driven further and faster may
limit the overall saving in fuel consumption and any reduction
in CO2 emissions. Some of the income from road pricing can be
hypothecated to public transport to make this cheaper. Those with
priced off the road will suffer the triple whammy of the depreciation
of a car left idle at home while they pay to use public transport
that is more expensive and less convenient. It is difficult to
say that there would be any other lasting or cumulative "benefits"
from road pricing as this measure would be part of an inconsistent
and conflicting package of transport policies, doing nothing to
break the vicious cycles that are causing and maintaining our
transport chaos.
3.2 In stark contrast, the cumulative effects
of lower national speed limits are very impressive. For example,
it is well known from car advertisements that the average car
is most fuel efficient at 50-55 mph. It may be helpful to keep
in mind that wind resistance increases with the square of the
speed with the consequence that, apart from streamlining effects,
there is a limit to how car technology can increase efficiency.
If, instead of trying to design fast cars to be more efficient,
car designers worked with nature and set about making slower cars
even more efficient, there would be a revolution in car design.
A maximum speed of 55 mph would encourage a power shift to alternatives
to the internal combustion engine.
3.3 Coaches and buses speed limited to 65
mph are not attractive to car drivers regularly travelling in
privacy at over 80 mph. If the car was limited to 55 mph, a coach
doing 65 mph, or more if it became safe to do so in the "fast"
lane of dual carriageways, would be a much more attractive proposition.
The competitive advantage of trains would also increase. Public
transport would increase its viability and profitability by increasing
"bums on seats" instead of from cross subsidy from taxing
the car driver.
3.4 Lower speeds significantly increase
road safety whereas road pricing has no effect. The current speed
limits are weapons of mass destruction and regime change to 55
mph and 20 mph would save many of the thousands of dead and injured
not to mention the stress placed on the health service by this
avoidable level of carnage.
3.5 The Prime Minister is becoming famous
for the implementation gap between his concern about the effects
of climate change and the lack of any or any proportionate action.
The regime change to 55/20 would reduce the CO2 emissions attributable
to transport by a very significant amount. This would need to
be modelled but the saving is not likely to be less than 25% even
before the development of lighter and more fuel-efficient vehicles.
3.6 Along with the reduction of CO2 will
be the reduction in the consumption of and dependency on oil.
This would benefit the economy through reducing the trade imbalance
and make foreign policy easier as oil reserves are not always
available from regimes where it easy to do business.
3.7 The slower speeds in urban areas will
make cycling and walking safer and more enjoyable further reducing
the reliance on the car.
3.8 Last year the School of Advance Motorists
and The Today Programme reported that drivers should use third
gear in order not to break the 30 mph speed limit. This would
raise fuel consumption by about 25% and create much more engine
noise. Compliance with the urban speed limit is a matter of appropriate
technology and this will only be developed when the maximum speed
limit is reduced to 55 mph. With appropriate vehicles and proper
enforcement traffic measures could be removed that are currently
responsible for the noisy and wasteful stop-start, 30-20-30 pattern
of driving.
3.9 Noise is also a serious problem for
those living close to inter-urban roads. Engine and tyre noise
would be substantially reduced if the maximum speed was 55 mph.
3.10 The wear and tear on the car and tyres
(not to mention the driver) would be reduced by lower speeds.
Roundabouts are a serious cause of tyre wear (worn out tyres are
a serious waste disposal problem) and a 20 mph limit on roundabouts
would not only increase their capacity but would enable tyres
to last longer. Lower speeds would mean softer breaking, again
extending tyre life.
3.11 Lower speeds would reduce the number
and scale of accidents and the consequent damage to vehicles.
This would reduce the insurance premiums and cost of motoring
as well as the advantages to insurance companies from reducing
the impact on climate change.
3.12 To speculate a bit further, lower speeds
may reduce in crime levels. "Car crime" and "road
rage" are in the language and to some extent both may be
symptoms of social relations developed around the image, performance
and divisiveness of highly powered motor cars. The 55/20 mph utility
vehicles may be smart but they may not have the same appeal to
criminals or effect on our psychology. The police and other emergency
vehicles would have the advantage of being able to travel at higher
speeds than the general public.
3.13 It is not speculative to state that
the sustainability of communities is limited by residents ability
to travel as far and as fast as the affordable means of personal
mobility will allow. If the level of mobility is limited by the
reduction of speed limits the level of accessibility will be maintained
by the greater reliance on more local facilities.
3.14 This may not be the full range of the
cumulative effects of lowering the national speed limits that
are not easy to predict as virtuous circles will develop their
own momentum. In fact the virtuous circle that could lead to lower
speeds could be triggered by increases in the price of oil, honouring
commitments to reducing CO2 or attaching greater value to the
life and limb being sacrificed to the 70/30 speed regime. These
linkages have been seen when a 55 mph speed limit was introduced
in 1973 as a response to the oil crisis and intelligent drivers
reduced their speed during the fuel protests about the cost of
fuel.
3.15 The benefits produced by the virtuous
circle of changes that include reduced speed limits and reduced
congestion can be achieved at virtually no cost in public investment
as these changes are cumulative and mutually reinforcing. Introducing
changes that are not included in the virtuous circle of lower
speeds, lower emissions, lower fuel consumption, lower death and
injury, more profitable public transport, more walking and cycling
etc etc will mean that public money will always need to be pumped
into these other public goods.
Recommendation: The reduction of the national
speed limits to 55 mph and 20 mph is required as part of a consistent
transport policy and as a trigger virtuous circles delivering
an integrated and sustainable transport system as well as a number
of significant social, environmental and economic benefits.
4. SUMMARY
4.1 The Committee is absolutely correct
to call for evidence in order to assess the effectiveness of alternative
measures to tackle congestion. This will also be part of a Strategic
Environmental Assessment before road pricing can lawfully become
the policy of the DfT or the Government.
4.2 When considering alternatives to road
pricing the Committee should compare the economic, environmental
and social impacts. The Committee should also consider the synergistic
effects of the alternatives, and understand that the policy that
is most consistent with other aspects of sustainable development
is the policy that will trigger the virtuous circles to deliver
these benefits in the shortest timescale and the least cost.
4.3 Road pricing is being proposed as a
means of reducing congestion and there are some tentative suggestions
there may be some other benefits such as the cross-subsidy available
to public transport; from the rich enjoying the freedom of uncongested
roads, to the poor travelling on speed restricted buses with their
car (and its capital investment) lying idle at home.
4.4 In contrast, lowering speed limits would
have a much more profound effect on road conditions including
congestion and are part of a virtuous circle that would deliver
a mutually reinforcing range of economic, social and environmental
benefits. In fact all the important individual impacts of lower
speeds are already well known to expert and layman. However, the
DfT fails to understand or accept that the combined and reinforcing
effects of these individual impacts will result in benefits far
beyond the reduction of congestion (and the saving of thousands
of lives).
4.5 Given the increasing need to reduce
GHGs and dependency on oil, the need to reduce the national speed
limits will become overwhelming. Even if road pricing could be
introduced now as the answer to congestion, these benefits of
lower speeds would still be necessary. It is difficult to escape
the conclusion that it would be negligent to wait ten years for
road pricing to become technologically feasible (and politically
acceptable) so that £20 billion could be spent in reducing
congestion that would not then exist if the national speed limits
had been reduced ten years' earlier, and at virtually no cost.
4.6 It is just possible that road pricing
may have a minor role to play in transport policy as a tax raising
measure or to deal with the localised congestion that remains
after the national speed limits have been reduced. However, the
introduction of road pricing can never remove the need to reduce
the national speed limits, unless the transport system is to continue
to be socially excusive, environmentally damaging and economically
crippling.
November 2004
| 
