House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Professor David Banister, The Bartlett School of Planning, University College London and Robin Hickman, Halcrow Group Ltd

1. INTRODUCTION

We welcome the very timely inquiry by the EAC into this important issue and would agree with the observation that it is unlikely that the transport sector will make a contribution to the Kyoto commitment of a 12.5% reduction in carbon emissions over the period 1990-2010. From the best information available, it is clear that transport's contribution to carbon dioxide emissions is expected to increase both in relative terms (from 24.2% to 30.2%) and in absolute terms (+17.9%) over the period 1990-2010 (Table 1).[1]

Table 1

CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BASELINE PROJECTION BY END USER IN THE UK


End User Category	1985	1990	2000	2015	2030

Road transport	28	35	38	42	49
Railways	1	2	2	1	1
Civil aircraft (domestic)	0	0	1	1	1
Shipping (domestic)	2	2	1	1	1
All transport	31	39	41	47	52
All emissions	156	161	149	153	166

Units: million tonnes of carbon (MtC).

We have just completed a project for the Department for Transport under their New Horizons programme (2004-05), which examined the potential for a 60% CO₂ reduction in the UK transport sector over the period 1990-2030, using an innovative backcasting scenario methodology. The project has the acronym VIBAT—Visioning and backcasting of UK transport policy. The EAC is welcome to download the five reports relating to that study—http://www.ucl.ac.uk/-ucft696/vibat2.html. The Executive Summary for the study is also attached to this submission [not printed].

The comments made in this submission relate explicitly to the findings of that research (published in January 2006), as they relate to four of the strategic issues outlined by the Committee—Q1, Q4, Q5 and Q7. It should be noted that in the Department for Transport project (VIBAT), all forms of domestic transport were considered, but not international air.

2. Q1 PROGRESS TOWARDS CARBON REDUCTION TARGETS

As noted in Table 1, little progress is actually being made in the transport sector in moving towards carbon reduction targets, as more travel is being undertaken and as car use increases. There is very little comfort that can be observed in purchasing patterns, despite voluntary EU agreements with ACEA.[2] The latest figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders suggest that CO₂ emissions levels from new cars reached about 171.4 g/km (2004), amounting to a 10% reduction over the seven year period since 1997. The main reason for this has been diesel penetration into the car fleet (17% in 2003). Importantly, over the same period of time CO₂ emissions have not reduced and the total volume of fuel consumed has increased marginally (to 37.6Mt 2003)—this is due to the increased volume of traffic over time.

One of the findings from our research was that it was extremely difficult to establish a clear baseline against which a comparison could take place. It is not so much of a problem over the shorter term (2010), but over the longer period (2030), it is important to establish a clear business as usual forecast. There seem to be several small, yet significant differences between the data sets used by the DfT, the DTI, Defra and the NETCEN data. Many of the necessary policy interventions require a long term and consistent commitment, as changes in urban form and the impact of technology will not have an immediate impact. It is essential that the baseline is established for at least 30 years (if not 50 years) into the future.

3. Q4 REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS AND THE ROLE OF DEMAND MANAGEMENT

In the VIBAT study, we examined the potential impacts of both technological innovation and behavioural change. Over 120 different policy measures were identified and these were put together into mutually supporting packages of measures. It is argued that the nature and scale of change in the transport sector is of an order of magnitude that individual policy measures would not have a significant positive effect on their own, and it was only when they were combined did a real effect take place. Over the short term, all available alternatives are well known and the real challenge is to implement them effectively. This means that complementary measures involving information, awareness raising, acceptability and involvement must accompany all actions to gain support from all affected stakeholders. The importance of these complementary measures has been well illustrated with respect to congestion charging in London.

Our analysis (over a longer time period) demonstrated that there were a range of policy packages that could be introduced with substantial reductions in carbon emissions. A spreadsheet was developed so that the potential savings in travel from the groups of measures (the packages) could be estimated, together with the changes in energy use and levels of carbon emissions. The different policy measures were grouped into 11 policy packages (Table 2), together with a range of variants to give an estimate of the overall carbon savings. It should be noted that these figures are estimates of the likely scale of change and should not be considered accurate figures. They do however illustrate the orders of magnitude of likely impacts and are consistent with other estimates (eg Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds University, for Tyndall, 2005). Further research is required on this issue.

Table 2

SUMMARY OF THE VIBAT POLICY PACKAGES


Policy Package	Variants	Comments	Potential Carbon Saving

PP1 Low emissions vehicles	1A High (90g/km) and 50% freight emissions reductions 1B Low (140g/km) and 25% freight emissions reductions	Passenger -11.8MtC Freight -6.5MtC Passenger -5.9MtC Freight -3.2MtC	-18.3MtC -9.1MtC
PP2 Alternative fuels	2A (50%) 2B (20%)	With 1A (passenger + freight) With 1B (passenger + freight) With 1A (passenger + freight) With 1B (passenger + freight)	-9.1MtC -4.6MtC -3.7MtC -1.8MtC
PP3 Pricing regimes	3A City and motorway 3B National		-1.1MtC -2.3MtC
PP4 Liveable cities	4A Limited application 4B Extensive application		-0.5MtC -2.4MtC
PP5 ICT and travel	5A ICT in transport—mainly freight 5B Teleactivities—mainly passenger		-1.8MtC -0.8MtC
PP6 Soft measures	6A Travel plans 6B Car ownership 6C Travel awareness 6D Car occupancy		-2.4MtC -0.9MtC
PP7 Ecological driving	7A National system 7B National and local system		-2.5MtC -4.6MtC
PP8 Long distance travel and substitution	8A Air travel and some substitution 8B High speed train and coach		-0.5MtC -0.7MtC
PP9 Freight	9A Freight transport subsidiarity 9B Freight dematerialisation		-0.7MtC -2.5MtC
PP10 Carbon Credits	10A 550ppm 10B 450ppm	This is a stand alone mechanism in its own right	-25.7MtC -34.1MtC
PP11 Oil Pricing	11A $60 a barrel (100p a litre) 11B $80 a barrel (130p a litre) 11C $100 a barrel (170p a litre)		-1.3MtC -6.4MtC -10.7MtC

Note: Freight dematerialisation includes load factors, scale economies (larger vehicles) and better vehicle utilisation.

From this table, it can be seen that demand management features in a variety of ways:

Policy Package 3 Pricing Regimes: road pricing can also make a substantial difference, whether it is operated nationally or just within cities and on the motorways. In combination with other policies, road pricing on an environmental basis (ie the charging relates to the carbon emissions profile of the vehicle and the number of passengers), pricing can give clear signals to consumers to switch to more efficient cars or to other modes of transport. Carbon reduction potential = 2.3 MtC—1.1 MtC.

Policy Package 4 Liveable Cities: this package focuses on using urban form to support sustainable transport, with higher density development clustered around an upgraded public transport system, and urban areas that have been planned to vastly improve their urban design quality and attractiveness for living and working. There is complementary heavy investment in walking and cycling facilities as well as public transport. Application of this package on a substantial scale has a major impact, but largely over the medium term, as decisions on the location of new housing and other development take place gradually over time. These decisions have a substantial effect on both distances travelled and modes used. Carbon reduction potential = 2.4 MtC—0.5 MtC.

Policy Package 5 Information and Communications Technology (ICT): this option explores the potential for carbon reduction, but the levels seem limited, and there may be rebound effects as ICT may encourage more, not less travel. The measures are targeted at personal and freight travel, and include advanced route and parking guidance, car sharing, public transport information systems, freight logistics, local traffic regulation and teleactivities. Carbon reduction potential = 1.8 MtC—0.8 MtC.

Policy Package 6 Soft Measures: including workplace and school travel plans, future changes in car ownership (including leasing and car clubs), car sharing, travel awareness and travel blending programmes. These are important supporting measures to other packages, but they also have an important impact on carbon emissions in their own right. Carbon reduction potential = 2.4 MtC—0.9 MtC.

Policy Package 7 Ecological Driving: this has substantial immediate benefits, particularly if combined with lower national and local speed limits. Slower speeds provide extensive savings, with a potential for some 15-20% reductions in carbon emissions if a maximum speed limit of 80 km/hr is introduced on motorways and trunk roads, with lower speeds on other roads and in urban areas. Although the fuel use and speed value curves for new cars are flatter than those for older cars, there are considerable fuel savings from lower speeds. These speed limits need to be combined with awareness programmes and better driving techniques to reduce fuel use. Carbon reduction potential = 4.6 MtC—2.5 MtC.

Policy Package 8 Long Distance Travel Substitution: there is some limited potential for long distance travel substitution of rail for air, and coach for rail, but the savings here are not substantial, particularly if load factors are high. Carbon reduction potential = 0.7 MtC—0.5 MtC.

Policy Package 9 Freight Transport: freight transport is covered in several of the packages, but subsidiarity (local production and knowledge transfer) and dematerialisation (miniaturisation, advanced logistics and distribution networks, load matching and material consumption) can all lead to savings, some substantial. Carbon reduction potential = 2.5 MtC0.7 MtC.

4. Q5 ACTION TO REDUCE ROAD TRANSPORT CARBON EMISSIONS AND CONGESTION

For transport to make a full contribution to carbon reductions, new thinking is required as the order of magnitude of the required change is immense. In the VIBAT research, the challenging 60% CO₂ reduction target is extremely difficult to achieve over the period to 2030. Two alternative futures were envisaged, one similar to the trend forecast, which was heavily reliant on technology to achieve the target, and the other was based on an acceptance within society that we would not increase our travel and so behavioural change was central to target achievement. The four main conclusions reached were:

(a) It was not possible to achieve the 60% target by using technology alone. Even with a maximum use of hybrid and lean burn technologies, and with extensive use (50%) of alternative (low carbon) fuels, there was still a shortfall—these measures could achieve about 75% of the target.

(b) The main problem was that with the trend forecast, there is an expected increase of about 35% in travel over the period (2000-30). If there was no increase in travel, then technological change if pushed hard now could just achieve the 60% target.

(c) Over the period to 2030, the population of the UK is expected to increase by 9%, and this in turn adds to the difficulty of achieving the targets.

₂

Several comments should be made. The targets set in the VIBAT project are more challenging than those in the Kyoto Protocol or those set by the UK government, and they extend over a longer period of time (to 2030 not 2010). This means that there is a longer lead time available, but it does not mean that nothing needs to be done now. Actions in transport (eg pricing) have an immediate effect, but actions concerning the location of new development or technological innovation will take much longer to have an effect. Yet action is needed now on all three fronts - transport, location of new development and technological innovation.

Pathways to reductions on CO₂ emissions in transport do not occur evenly and opportunities should be grasped to maximise any benefits. This means that there should be a full inventory of measures (and their potential impacts), together with the costs and benefits of action (or no action). Such an assessment should also address the risks of actions (or no action) and identify those responsible for implementation. Throughout the period of time (and longer), the outcomes of actions need to be monitored in terms of their reductions, trying to identify where synergies might take place, for example trigger points where several actions work together in the same direction to have a much greater beneficial impact. Equally important in the monitoring is the identification of unintended or rebound effects, where the expectations are not matched by outcomes. There is a dearth of evidence concerning many of these issues.

If oil prices remain at current levels ($60 a barrel) or even increase, then fuel prices will also be substantially raised, making it more expensive to travel (in the short term), perhaps leading to a heightened interest in purchasing fuel efficient vehicles. Higher prices may also give the correct signals to the market to invest more in clean efficient technologies, to encourage planners and developers to create denser mixed use developments with shorter travel distances, and to give incentives to individuals to reduce their car based travel through sharing, the greater use of cycles and public transport, and the internet as a substitute for travel.

5. Q7 ADEQUATE COORDINATION

One clear message that comes out from the workshops related to the VIBAT research is the need for a wide range of stakeholders to be involved in tackling carbon emissions in transport, and that many of the options available are not only the responsibility of the DfT. Changes in travel behaviour are often the result of wider policy changes, eg land use planning, the centralisation of health facilities or "widened choice" in education. The need for multi-disciplinary and integrated strategies and implementation is thus paramount. There is little current evidence of this.

It is important to open up the debate about the issues raised in this research with all stakeholders as this begins to create an understanding about the scale and importance of the CO₂ reduction issues, and it would begin to remove some of the barriers to effective implementation. Included here would be questions relating to the concept of sector based targets; the relative weight of contribution from each sector; how CO₂ reduction targets can become central in transport decision making (including influencing the investment strategies in future Local Transport Plans, Regional Transport Strategies and the design of Sustainable Communities); how to raise public awareness and to get the public's active involvement in seeking solutions; and how to encourage behavioural change that can be maintained over time.

There is a need for an interdepartmental taskforce that can bring together all involved parties to identify the agenda together with the key decision points, so that there is a robust and consistent framework for progress to be made towards reducing carbon emissions from transport. This however should not be at the expense of taking radical and positive action in the transport sector now (from 2006) so that the transport sector can start to make a contribution to carbon reduction targets.

February 2006

1 1990 Transport emissions of CO₂ 39MtC and total 161MtC = 24.2%; 2010 Transport emissions of CO₂ 46MtC and total 152MtC = 30.2%-this is the relative increase. The absolute increase is from 39MtC to 46MtC or 17.9%. Back

2 Under a voluntary agreement between the EU and the car manufacturers, the industry (represented by ACEA for Europe and JAMA and KAMA for Japan and Korea respectively) has committed itself to cut CO₂ emissions from new cars to 140 grams per kilometre (g/km) by 2008 (2009 for the Asians). The 2005 baseline is 185 g/km. Back



© Parliamentary copyright 2006	Prepared 7 August 2006