Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
WEDNESDAY 8 MARCH 2006
PROFESSOR DAVID
BANISTER AND
MR ROBIN
HICKMAN
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome
to the Committee, the first public session of our inquiry into
transport. We are delighted to see you here. We have read "Looking
over the Horizon" with interest. I wonder whether, just to
kick things off, you would like to say how the study came about
and in particular how the 60% by 2030 was the chosen benchmark?
Professor Banister: Certainly.
Could I just introduce myself? I am David Banister from University
College London and together with Robin Hickman from the Halcrow
Group we ran the VIBAT project, which was sponsored by the Department
for Transport under their New Horizons programme of last year.
The New Horizons programme is quite small-scale research projects
which are intended to look further forward, looking at new ideas,
a bit more blue skies than most of the work that they carry out,
and we very much welcome the opportunity to participate in that
programme. The study itself had this very simple brief, which
was a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions, that was the
target, by the year 2030. 2030 was selected because it was sufficiently
far into the future that it allows us to think a little bit more
"out of the box", so it is not looking just necessarily
at trends, it is looking at ways in which we can look beyond trends
and looking at what we call trend-breaking futures. We do not
want to be too far ahead because then it becomes much more uncertain.
We do not want to be too close because we are fairly confident
about perhaps what might happen in the next four or five years.
The 60% target was one which we felt was sufficiently challenging
and what effectively it is is the target which has been suggested
by RCEP, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, but
their time horizon is over a longer period of 2050. So we felt
that was a challenging one and we felt that looking at the transport
sector on its own was one way to look at the possibility within
that sector of achieving our targets. We realise that it is a
global thing, it is not just transport which is the problem, but
we are looking at the possibilities within the transport sector.
So it is assuming, for instance, that there is a fair share argument
there. That was the thinking behind that.
Q2 Chairman: Was there a sense of
commitment on the Department for Transport's side? Was that a
process and a target which they were driving you towards?
Professor Banister: Yes, they
were happy with that target, relaxed with that. They did not want
anything tougher than that because I think, quite rightly, they
thought that would have been extremely difficult to achieve, and
I think they were relaxed with 60% rather than, say, 40% because
they felt that was something we ought to be looking at, at the
extremes. I should say also that the project was testing the methodology
as well as looking at possible futures.
Q3 Chairman: Do you want to say anything
about the fact that you have got these two models there? Did you
approach it in that way because of discussions with the Department?
Professor Banister: They knew
that we had done previous work using a similar methodology in
a variety of other studies, principally within the European Union,
and looking there at alternative futures and they were interested
in looking at the possibility of using scenario-building methods,
which are the sort of methods we have been using, rather than
the more traditional forecasting methods which look to where we
are now and how we got there and then project that forward using
certain assumptions. What the scenario-building approach does
is to try and look at alternative futures and what you are trying
to do there is to develop different types of futures based on
different assumptions, whether they are growth assumptions, whether
they are more socially-based or technologically-based assumptions.
So you have different futures of a city, or a country in this
case, which are seen to be desirable in some sort of way. Once
you have got a broad view of where you might want to be, whether
it is pushing the economics or the social side of it, you then
say, "Right, we know where we want to be. We know where we
are. How can we get from where we are to where we want to be?"
That is the backcasting approach and the backcasting approach
does more than that in the sense that it then tries to build up,
as we have, a series of policy packages, a series of options which
together can actually move in the direction of the position you
want to be in. It also looks at the ways in which those policies
ought to be sequenced. What do we need to do now if we are going
to achieve something in 10 or 15 years' time? What can we leave
for another five years or 10 years? It gives you some sort of
insight into the way in which that can actually be achieved.
Q4 Chairman: Coming back to the present
for a moment, the Department for Transport is signed up to a 20%
target for 2010. Given your experience with the Department, do
they really feel committed to achieving that? Is it something
which they seriously envisage taking place?
Professor Banister: This is a
bit of a poisoned chalice, I suppose, but if you want my view
on it, I would say that in the transport sector they have got
no chance of achieving that target. If we look at what has happened
in the recent past, we have had (as we put in our note to you)
both an increase in absolute terms within the transport sector
in terms of CO2 emissions and transport's relative
share of the total CO2 emissions has also increased,
in both cases substantially, and increasingly as we get nearer
to that date it will get much harder to reach that sort of objective.
Q5 Chairman: Is it harder because
this is the result of lots of individual choices, that they are
not very susceptible to policy instruments in terms of being changed?
Professor Banister: I think if
you are going to actually make any real progress here we have
to think beyond looking at simply doing one thing and this will
cause something to happen, "We will raise the price here
and see if that will actually make a difference." What we
really need to be beginning to look at is the way in which we
can creatively bring a different range of policy measures together.
So I think what has been underestimated is the nature and the
scale of the change which is actually required. The small incremental
policies will not make very much difference. It is really putting
things together that will begin to have an impact. I think one
crucial part of that is also that we are not very good at explaining
to people why we are doing things in a particular way. To actually
get people to support what you are doing is crucially important
in this area. If they realise that the environment is a problem,
if they realise that they are contributing to that problem, are
they then prepared to do something, not necessarily a very substantial
change in their lifestyle, but are they prepared to do things
which will make that work slightly differently? That would lead
to a net benefit. So it is the part of communication, trying to
get people to buy in, to get involved in the process of seeking
positive solutions.
Mr Hickman: If I can come in on
that, the VIBAT study tried to set up a dichotomy with two different
images of the future and one is based on technological change,
the other mainly on behavioural change, and we tried to use the
study to show that technological changes would not get us out
of the hole that we are in in terms of carbon emissions. I think
this demonstrates quite well that that is the case but, as ever,
it is not that simple. Technological change is also highly interlinked
with behavioural change, so if we are looking to reduce vehicle
fleet emissions to 140 grammes per kilometre average or less,
say below 100, that is also predicated on consumer choices. So
we have to buy Toyota Prius-style cars, hybrids, et cetera. So
that is where the difficulty in achieving targets like this comes
in. All these things are interlinked and they are very complex.
Q6 Mr Hurd: I am interested in your
comments about the need to communicate. Can you point the Committee
to any recent research which illuminates the challenge? I am aware
of an old Department for Transport survey, for example, that found
only one in eight people make any connection between flying and
climate change. Are there any other kinds of surveys or research
which you could point us to to illuminate the challenge?
Professor Banister: There are
two things I can point you to. There is a report which my colleagues
behind me may actually know more about. Lynne Sloman did a report
which looked at various options and looked at the way in which
different types of measures have been introduced and what their
actual impact was and the different approaches which had been
adopted. She had a scholarship, I think an 1851 exhibition scholarship,
and this was the outcome of that. The second is some very interesting
work which has been pioneered by people in Germany, a guy called
Werner Br½g, and he has worked on what they call "personalised
travel planning" and/or "travel blending" where
they go and actually talk through the possibilities with families.
It has been used in Australia and in Germany. I do not know about
in this country, but perhaps not to such a great extent. They
talk through with the people what their travel patterns are and
ways in which they could actually make those more environmentally
sound and reduce the use of cars and share journeys and use public
transport, those sorts of things. What they found was by doing
that and then going back at various points in time the people
did change what they were doing and they did maintain that change.
So it was not just a temporary change and then doing what they
did before, it was actually that they thought, "Well, this
makes sense and we'll keep on doing it." I think that is
the sort of way in which at that level of detail one can actually
begin to make progress.
Mr Hickman: Lynne Sloman we mention
in our key references at the back of the VIBAT executive summary.
Less traffic where people live, which was done for Transport 2000.
There is other research done in Aberdeen, the Jillian Anable work
(Complacent Car Addicts or Aspiring Environmentalists 2005), where
she tries to segment people as to whether they are susceptible
to mode shift. So they look at car-dependent people who will not
change (the typical Jeremy Clarkson type), people who are susceptible
to change, and then people who are most likely to change. There
are four groups which they segment, which is very interesting
and which is worth looking at.
Q7 Colin Challen: You said in your
evidence, and indeed in the VIBAT report, that there is a plethora
of past trend and future projection figures for carbon currently
in circulation. We have different sources using different methodologies,
different measurements, different modes and breakdowns within
modes, and so on. Is all that confusion and all that information
a barrier to really making progress?
Mr Hickman: Yes. We thought getting
a baseline together for this study would be very easy and would
take us a couple of weeks, but it actually took us about three
or four months and we ended up using a combination of different
sources. NETCEN data is probably the best data which we used for
the historic trend 1985 to 2005. For the projection we used Transport
Statistics Great Britain, which goes up to 2020, and then we had
to extrapolate to 2030. So there is actually no projection of
transport trends and carbon emissions past 2020, no accepted projection.
The Department for Transport was actually very helpful and it
did a run of its national traffic model and we used that to look
at what effect the Transport White Paper 2004 is likely to have,
and we show the graph in the executive summary. So we used a combination
of sources, but they are all very different. They have different
area bases, Great Britain, the UK, England and Wales, so we had
to use various assumptions putting them together. They have different
assumptions embedded within them. The DfT projections have the
ACEA voluntary agreement embedded within it and a Transport White
Paper policy thrust, whereas the Defra and NETCEN data does not,
so it is quite difficult comparing the two.
Q8 Colin Challen: Is there any way
in which researchers are beginning to coalesce around one sort
of methodology? It seems to me that if there is a great deal of
conflicting information, possibly, or information which does not
quite add up, we want to get a proper grip on the problem and
therefore want to have the proper policies to do this.
Mr Hickman: As I have said, there
are a number of sources. Within the limited budget which we had
we tried to put them together as best we could, but I think further
research needs to concentrate on the first step of getting together
a robust baseline which Defra, DTI and DfT sign up to and then
a robust projection for 2030 and 2050.
Q9 Colin Challen: Do you see an indication
that they are about to sign up to some kind of clear baseline,
or is that just what you would wish them to do?
Mr Hickman: That is what I would
wish them to do, but I am not sure whether they are working on
that.
Q10 Colin Challen: Are there any
particular gaps in the information which you think ought to be
filled, which need more research?
Mr Hickman: There is a whole list
of things we mention in the VIBAT study. One is the baseline.
Two is an inventory of measures. We identify 120-odd measures
you could use on the transport side which could contribute to
carbon reduction, but we require a thorough and robust inventory
of measures, a look at good practice and the likely carbon reduction,
the potential that each of those measures has. You need to look
at good practice from around Europe and elsewhere, where you can
look at what other people in other countries have managed to do
in terms of carbon reduction in the transport sector. Also, a
difficulty looming in this type of research is something we did
not really tackle, which is looking at potential synergies, additional
effects, unintended effects, rebound effects, all these problems
which can be very significant in the future. We did not really
tackle these in our work.
Q11 Colin Challen: With all these
things, if you were tomorrow to get a huge hand-out of cash from
some research council, what would be the most important thing
you thought needed dealing with, the most pressing?
Mr Hickman: I do not think there
is one pressing thing, there are a number of things: those four
issues I mentioned, but maybe the most important thing is looking
at the incentives to elicit change, how we can actually get the
public and everybody in this room to sign up to this level of
change, so the incentives required to make major change.
Q12 Colin Challen: Are you looking
for a gold standard, if you like? I have found from our experience
that trying to pin down carbon emissions is extremely difficult.
The individuals do not have the information and then they will
go onto the internet and find 12 different websites for the same
purpose but with different figures. Would the search for a gold
standard be the Holy Grail?
Mr Hickman: It would be incredibly
useful if people could have some store in something like that,
yes.
Q13 Colin Challen: But there is no
indication, so far as you can tell, from the DfT or anybody else
in Government actually working together to obtain that?
Mr Hickman: I cannot answer that.
I do not know what DfT are working on in their research programme.
They might be doing something along those lines.
Q14 Colin Challen: There is a good
chance you would have heard about it if they were, I would imagine!
Has anybody seriously challenged or questioned your figures?
Mr Hickman: No. We would like
them to. We would like them to see whether we are coming up with
the right levels of change. We think they are pretty robust in
terms of the level of change. I am sure the figures would vary
if people use a different methodology to look at what impacts
alternative fuels, hybrid cars or road pricing would have. I think
this area is incredibly important. At the moment they have had
a £50,000 piece of research done on it. It needs a lot more
rigorous thought developed. We think our recommendations and our
results are pretty robust as far as our study and research allowed.
Other research institutions like ITS Leeds[3]
have done similar work and they are within the same sort of range,
so we are very happy with our level of contribution that we show
for each policy package.
Professor Banister: I think there
are two issues. One is the research issue, and yes, I think more
research is needed, but I think the messages are clear. It is
not one of these things where we would suggest, "Let's forget
about it for a while and do more research on it." If one
is going to have serious policy action, it is clear the scale
of change which is actually required and it is clear that there
are certain things which need to be done, and those things need
to be done sooner not later if transport is going to make any
contribution. So I would see a two-edged approach. One would be
better quality research which has good quality evidence, but also
from a researcher's point of view if things are actually put into
action it makes our life much easier as well to actually get much
better analysis done. For example, with the road congestion charging
in London a lot of the ex ante work done before was very much
based on a lot of, in some cases, fairly heroic assumptions. We
now have good quality data for three years after it has been introduced,
so we can be much more secure in the sorts of projections we can
make and the sorts of analyses we can do, so please do not take
this answer as saying, "Don't do things," take it the
other way.
Q15 Mr Caton: The figures you present
in your study, even though they do not include emissions from
non-domestic shipping and aviation, are very challenging. Are
the business as usual projections which you make a worst case
scenario?
Professor Banister: Our business
as usual is the nearest we were able to come to what the expectations
of the Department for Transport were. They were moderated at a
later stage because there were some new assumptions or some new
policies which were put in as a result of the White Paper which
would dampen down the forecast, but basically the business as
usual situation is expecting that over the period we were looking
at, to 2030, there would be a 35% increase in travel over that
period. If you are looking at past trends, it is less than what
has happened in the similar period going backwards, so we would
expect those to be a reasonable starting point. One of our scenarios,
the new market economics one, is close to the business as usual.
You should also be aware that over this period population will
be increasing by about 9%, so that again will be adding to the
amount of travel which is actually undertaken.
Q16 Mr Caton: You do divert from
DfT's projections in their White Paper. You clearly believe there
will be no decline in emissions from transport between 2010 and
2015, whereas the White Paper felt there would be. Why do you
take a different position and why do you think the Department
has got it wrong?
Professor Banister: One thing
is that embedded within, in my understanding, the Department's
forecast there is the ACEA agreement, which is a voluntary agreement
with the motor industry that all new vehicles by 2008 will have
an emissions profile of on average 140 grammes of CO2
per kilometre travelled. The current new vehicle stock has a figure
of 171 grammes of CO2 emitted per kilometre travelled.
It is, in my view, very difficult (if not impossible) to reach
that voluntary target at the date at which it is actually expected.
At the present time, the latest figures from SMMT (the Society
of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) suggests that 15% of the new
car market reaches that target, and that is the 2005 figure. To
get that up to 100% by 2008 is impossible, but that is part of
the explanation, I think, unless I have misinterpreted it.
Mr Hickman: No, we do not make
a judgment on DfT and whether we think their projection is correct
or achievable, or not. The way we set up the study was to have
a baseline projection to 2030 based on current acceptance of what
the right projection would be, which we got from Transport Statistics
Great Britain, which is widely acknowledged as useable, acceptable
and robust. Our 60% target comes from historical trends, so it
is 60% of 1990 levels of emissions. So they are just both shown
to show the level of change required. DfT's projection is added
in to show what they think is achievable through the Transport
White Paper. So we do not make a judgment on whether we think
that is likely to happen or not.
Q17 Mr Caton: In the two models you
present when do emissions start to fall off and which gets us
there quicker?
Mr Hickman: In one of the background
reports we look at phasing implementation and what is likely to
happen in five, ten, 15, 20, 25 years' time, but most of the work
just looks at an end state in 2030. So within any of this work
we do not go down that route and say which would take us there
more quickly, but there are things which are mentioned which have
a longer lead-in time like land use planning e.g. if you are trying
to increase densities around the public transport network. Land
use planning change typically takes a long time to achieve, so
typically you will have a 1 or 2% change in the urban area of
land use. So you can see what the lead time is to change urban
forum densities, et cetera, but we do not really explore that
to the extent that we could.
Q18 Ms Barlow: Your figures put road
transport as the greatest challenge, and we are going to look
at aviation and rail transport later. Do you think focusing on
the carbon emissions from public transport, whether coach, bus
or train, rather than improving the use of public transport distracts
from the real issue? Should not the whole focus of attention be
on private cars and rail freight as real contributors to a threatening
trend, at least at the beginning?
Professor Banister: My guess is,
yes. I am not quite sure if I have understood your question, but
the main area we are looking to for improvement are in road transport
and air travel.
Q19 Ms Barlow: Do you think that
the focus should be on making public transport more attractive
rather than on the actual carbon emissions of public transport,
because private road use and road freight is surely a greater
danger in terms of carbon emissions, so we want to go away from
that on to public transport?
Professor Banister: Yes. In terms
of that second part, yes, the main target is the private car and
road freight. That is where most of the emissions come from, but
in terms of public transport I would argue that clean public transport
is a major contribution to the quality of public transport. In
London now we have a very modern bus fleet which meets and matches
the strictest European standards in terms of emissions. They are
new buses and that again improves the quality, so again that makes
it more attractive to people. I think perhaps what the London
buses should be doing is also selling the bus, as well as being
new, comfortable, reliable, on its environmental profile as well.
That would give an added incentive to people to use it. I think
in most cases in public transport we should be using the best
available technology to improve that, and again that would improve
its attractiveness to the user, but the main concern is trying
to look at ways of reducing carbon emissions from the private
car and the truck business. Just following on from what Robin
was saying to the previous question, I think there are many ways
of doing that and some of them do not need that much pain. One
way to increase efficiency all round is to improve the occupancy
levels. If we have a full car, environmentally that is probably
quite a good situation. If we have a full train, a full bus, or
full anything, that is what we are looking at. One way in which
the freight sector, for instance, can begin to look at itself
and see how it can improve is to reduce the amount of empty running
which exists within the freight sector, lorries which are carrying
nothing and not doing anything in particular except getting back
to where they started from. If we can organise things and the
technology allows us to do that, we can with not very much pain
reduce our levels of car-dependence and emissions consequently
as well.
3 Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds University. Back
|
