Memorandum submitted by Sustrans
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— This is a response by the sustainable
transport charity Sustrans.
— It is based on our paper "Driven
to Extinction?", as supplied to the Committee.
— We believe all key policy areas,
not just Transport, should now relate to Climate Change and Energy
Depletion.
— We strongly commend the DfT's
VIBAT study, which examine ways of cutting carbon emissions from
transport 60% by 2030.
— Sustrans believes that radical
changes in vehicle fuels and technology are needed but must be
backed up by major changes in travel behaviour and modal shift
if we are to meet the necessary carbon reduction targets.
— We are working on a large range
of practical projects to reduce car dependency and also thereby
reduce carbon emissions from transport.
INTRODUCTION
This is the response by Sustrans to the above
inquiry. Sustrans is the charity behind practical and innovative
solutions to some of the UKs biggest transport challenges. Our
vision is a world in which people choose to travel in ways that
benefit their health and the environment. Among our work is the
award-winning National Cycle Network, Safe Routes to School, Bike
It, TravelSmart and Active Travel.
Sustrans has recently been co-opted as experts
onto the European Climate Change Programme, where we have succeeded
in getting walking and cycling (hitherto ignored) taken into account.
We are partnering WHO and others in an EU funding bid for integrated
tools to calculate and value both of the climate change and the
public health benefits arising from a modal shift from motorised
traffic to walking and cycling.
We are a member of Stop Climate Chaos, a new
coalition with millions of members in the UK. SCC is calling for
the setting of a national carbon budget. It also wishes to see:
(a) International emissions starting to decline
by 2015.
(b) Overseas aid to be linked to a system
that will be "climate-proofed".
(c) UK emissions to start declining by 3%
annually.
We are all working within the current context
of Transport emissions being around one quarter of carbon emissions,
and of that percentage rising. The long term aspiration of the
DfT is only for a pathway to a 60% cut by 2050. Sustrans believes
that recent climate findings, especially to do with the melting
of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets suggest that climate
change is close to being irreversible, and that really radical
action is needed now.
That is why we have had to re-consider our own
work in relation to Climate Change. We believe that it needs to
take place within the framework of a 60% cut in carbon emissions
by 2030, with further cuts thereafter. Sustrans feels that Contraction
and Convergence—a proposal by the Global Commons Institute
(Meyer 2003)—offers the only potentially widely acceptable
methodology for a global solution to this global problem. As is
well known, it proposes setting a maximum limit of (say) 450 parts
per million for global atmospheric CO2 (current levels
are 380 ppm) and then calculating a timescale for cutting emissions.
For the purposes of equity, national allowances
are calculated on a per capita basis. This means that high carbon-emitting
countries, such as ourselves, are going to have to make deep cuts,
probably in the range of 80-90% of current emissions. Once the
framework and the overall capping limit is accepted the task is
for each nation to divide up the roles of the most effective interventions.
We list three highly relevant UK documents below.
FORESIGHT
Produced by the Office of Science and Technology
this January this study has looked 50 years ahead. "Intelligent
Infrastructure Futures" is interesting because of the range
of scenarios it examined. It also emphasises that 80% of the UK
lives in urban centres, so the country is relatively compact.
As such we could do much more on Continental-style measures of
high-density living, high quality urban design, and minimising
movement. These would be particularly valuable if the "Urban
Colonies" scenario comes into being—which also has
close links with sustainable energy and waste policies.
It is worth mentioning the "Tribal Trading"
possibility envisaged by Foresight. In this the world has gone
through a savage energy shock in which the world economy is severely
damaged. Most travel is local, typically by cycle or horse. Local
food production and services have become highly important.
VIBAT
We have supplied the Committee with a copy of
the Banister and Hickman "Vision and Backcasting in Transport"
study, recently completed for the Research Department of the DfT
as part of their Horizons project. This is of particular interest
as it attempts to secure cuts of 60% in CO2 emissions
from the Transport sector by 2030, a date many believe to be more
in tune with the necessary timescale than the DfT's 2050 date.
This study is robust and wide-ranging, and looks
at two possible future scenarios it calls "New Market Economy"
and "Smart Social". The former is mostly technology
based, and it is noteworthy it only delivers two-thirds of the
required carbon savings. Smart Social offers a very broad range
of measures, which are not a menu but a total list of all possible
and proven policies that require urgent implementation now.
The VIBAT study urges (page 18) that "It
is in travel behaviour that the real change must take place."
Under the "Smart Social" scenario bus distance would
increase 15%, rail 50%, walking trips would double, and cycle
use increase five-fold. Car occupancy would need to increase,
and there would be a national programme of Smarter Choices. There
would also have to be major improvements in vehicle fuels and
technology, with car makers planning for these now.
Sustrans believes it is absolutely vital that
the VIBAT study findings are injected into the broader domain
of decision-making about Climate Change and Carbon Emissions.
They should inform, amongst others:
— The Climate Change Review.
— The Energy Policy Review.
— The Comprehensive Spending Review.
VIBAT illustrates clearly that reducing emissions
from Transport is not just a matter for the DfT.
DRIVEN TO
EXTINCTION?
This is the title of the background paper for
Sustrans' conference on Transport, Health and Climate Change held
in Cambridge in September 2005. We have supplied a copy of this
to the Committee. It summarises the current adverse trends in
Transport policy, notably:
— The constant increase in average
journey lengths.
— The growth of sprawl and unsustainable
retail, business and housing developments.
— The alarming rise in obesity
and other health problems as a result of less walking and cycling.
Physical inactivity in England costs the NHS over £8 billion
annually (Source: Chief Medical Officer, 2004).
When discussing car travel the report notes
the findings of Sustrans' TravelSmart work, in partnership with
Socialdata, where car traffic is reduced by an average of 9-14%.
Many people, it is clear, are locked into high levels of car dependency
because they do not have adequate information on alternatives.
Providing such information is by far quicker, cheaper, more effective
and less controversial than most other transport options (we have
successfully proved this yet again in the results of our travel
behaviour surveys of the three English Sustainable Travel Demonstration
Towns, the results of which we commend to the Committee, particularly
with regard to the potential for traffic reduction).
Brog of Socialdata has often noted (as in 2003,
Nottingham) that across the UK and Europe opinion-formers have
seriously incorrect ideas of what the public feel about sustainable
transport. This leads to timid and ineffective action by Government.
It may well be that the situation is worse in the UK because of
misrepresentation in the national media. For example the Daily
Mail and The Sun tend to give large amounts of coverage
to views held by the Association of British Drivers. This is despite
the minute size of this body, and notwithstanding the fact that
it actually denies that climate change is taking place. We urge
the Committee to examine whether DfT and Government timidity over
carbon emissions is based on a misplaced fear of adverse press
comment.
In addition we would suggest that they see change
in awareness of the crucial need for urgent action is taking place,
and that there is opening up an opportunity to take radical action
without the kind of criticism which might previously have been
expected.
THE ROLE
OF OTHER
DEPARTMENTS
We wish strongly to emphasise that reducing
carbon emissions from Transport is not solely the role of the
DfT. Inaction or, indeed, wrong policies, by other Departments
are actively making matters worse. We discuss this and make recommendations
for action in our "Driven to Extinction?" report. In
brief these are:
The Treasury
— Should set a national carbon
budget.
— Then reassess all Departmental
budgets from a carbon-reduction aspect.
— Discuss with DfT its planned
Transport spend in light of the need to cut CO2 emissions.
DEFRA
— Ensure key decisions about reducing
carbon are included in the Climate Change Review.
DEPARTMENT OF
TRADE AND
INDUSTRY
— Bring radical reductions in
transport emissions into its Energy Review.
Department of Health
— Ensure all NHS sites are exemplars
for travel planning.
— Award contracts for goods and
services which favour local sourcing.
— Implement recommendations of
the Warless report, to secure a population "fully engaged"
with its own health.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
— Issue a Planning Policy Statement
on Carbon reduction.
— Revise existing PPSs to include
carbon reduction.
— Ensure CO2 reduction
is factored into Regional Plans and Strategies.
— Revise all Public Sector Agreements
to include carbon reduction.
— Reassess its Sustainable Communities
programme, with transport and carbon reduction in mind.
— Put carbon reduction at the
heart of its Neighbourhood and Regeneration work.
In general there seems an almost total lack
of official awareness about the overall impact of transport-related
decisions. At the time of writing there was the possibility of
hundreds of Post Offices being closed, due to impending loss of
Government support. This will reduce greatly non-motorised access
and increase car travel. Elsewhere decisions about the closure
of libraries, increasing choice in schools, and centralising health
facilities will all generate extra motorised travel and, as a
consequence, increase carbon emissions.
FOUR CRITICAL
POLICY AREAS
Transport trends
The DfT has recently published "Transport
Trends 2005", covering the last 25 years. These statistics
confirm a generally adverse picture, which needs tackling as a
matter of urgency. Among them are:
— Car traffic by distance has
increased 75% since 1980;
— Whilst motoring costs have held
steady, average public transport fares for the last 25 years rose
37%;
— While rail journeys have increased
significantly, bus journeys outside London have declined sharply,
and by 48% in metropolitan areas; and
— The annual distance travelled
on foot has fallen 18% and by cycle 23% during this period.
Clearly if carbon emissions from transport are
to fall these adverse trends are going to have to be reversed.
Energy depletion
In 2004 the UK became a net importer of natural
gas. In 2005 it became a net importer of oil, for the first time
since 1979. Oil imports were £670 million over exports: four
years ago the export credit balance was £5 billion a year.
(Source: Office for National Statistics, 10 February 2006)
These figures underline how dangerous and wrong
it is to burn fossil fuel for longer journeys by road and more
trips by air. Unnecessary travel will rapidly become unsustainable
financially, as well as environmentally.
Carbon rationing
Sustrans believes that the Climate Change and
Energy Depletion issues will of themselves impose some kind of
rationing over carbon emissions. These will be at national, regional,
local, business, household and individual levels.
We ask the Committee to examine the concept
of Personal Carbon Credits. These are explained in the Hillman
and Fawcett publication for Penguin (2004) "How We Can Save
The Planet". The main features are:
— Equal, tradeable but mandatory
rations for all.
— A year-on-year reduction of
the annual ration, in line with Contraction and Convergence targets.
Much of this could be done by smart card technology.
People who under-spend their ration would be able to sell their
surplus.
An oil-free future: or "how others do it"
We wish to draw the Committee's attention to
the fact that Sweden has recently declared its aim of being the
world's first oil-free economy (Guardian, 8 February 2006).
Not only that, but it is planned to do this within the next 15
years, and without new nuclear power stations. For more details
see http://www.energybulletin.net/12852.html.
It is particularly worth noting the positive
way their Government is embracing this idea. An official is quoted
as saying "We want to be both mentally and technically prepared
for a world without oil." The Minister for Sustainable Development
states "A Sweden free of fossil fuels would give us enormous
advantages, not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations
in oil prices." The contrast in attitudes with the UK is
embarrassing.
QUESTIONS
What progress is the DfT making against key carbon
reduction targets or forecasts included in the 10 Year Plan, the
Climate Change Strategy, the 2004 Transport White Paper, the 2004
PSA, Powering Future Vehicles and other documents?
2004 Transport White Paper
It is doubtful that the promises made in 10.17
about a broader debate on "the value we attach to the movement
of people and goods" has really taken place. The White Paper
was written in the days before Climate Change and Peak oil had
moved far up the political agenda. The assertion in the Executive
Summary (4) that "Our transport strategy has to recognise
that demand for travel will increase in the future" is deeply
worrying. So, too, is the excessive reliance on long-term solutions
such as Hydrogen, which is unlikely to come into play before the
Paper's lifespan (till 2030) expires.
Finally, of course, there is the much-publicised
fundamental flaw in the Paper of working (on DTI figures) on the
assumption that by 2010 oil will cost $23 a barrel.
This to our mind reinforces the need for the
DfT to develop a range of transport and emissions scenarios, based
on different energy prices in the year to 2030.
Is the DfT's carbon reduction target underpinned
by a coherent strategy stretching across the Department's entire
range of activities?
Far from it. The most obvious example is aviation,
where the White Paper predicts a 300% increase in air travel by
2030. This means that this sector's emissions will be 30% of emissions
by 2030.
There appears to be little evidence that the
adverse impacts of aviation and of carbon emissions generally
is systematically integrated across the Department's draft Evidence
and Research Strategy, and more work needs doing here (Sustrans
response to consultation, February 2006).
It is also not clear just how much "buy
in" there is likely to be from other divisions of the Department
into the recent VIBAT study (see elsewhere). We urge the Committee
to press the DfT on this matter.
Elsewhere, carbon emissions from transport are
poorly considered in work on Regional Transport Strategies and
prioritisation within these. Research produced this February shows
that overall 72% of bids for capital funding are on roads, 24%
for public transport. In fast-growing areas such as the South-East
and the East Midlands the road proportion was 95%. This is clearly
out of sync with any attempt to control carbon emissions (Surveyor
magazine, 16 February 2006).
A further problem is that the Department has
issued no guidance to the regions on setting optimism bias, or
indeed on the methodology for the whole prioritisation process.
Again carbon control is clearly not thought to be an issue here.
Meanwhile there appears little inclination to
halt the continuously escalating cost of road schemes. The Highways
Agency spend on "targeted improvements" is £1,000
million over budget, and local authorities' major road scheme
costs have escalated 47% (Road Block, January 2006). The net effect
of this lack of overall control is likely to be yet further rises
in traffic levels and carbon emissions.
Is the current balance of expenditure between
the DfT's objectives adequately reflecting the environmental challenges
it faces?
No. There is no clear environmental element—in
particular CO2 emissions—factored into DfT spending.
Sustrans would like to see all Departmental spending reassessed
within the basic framework of cutting carbon emissions 60% by
2030.
It is highly likely that such a reassessment
would:
— Eliminate nearly all proposed
major road schemes.
— Direct rail spending into improving
reliability and expanding local services (and not invest in a
new generation of High Speed Rail).
— Greatly increase spending on
Local Transport.
— Give much greater support and
stability to bus services outside London.
— Significantly boost spending
on Smarter Choices/cycling/walking.
Finally, there is the issue of the Eddington
Review of Transport and the Economy. The background brief, produced
jointly by the DfT and HM Treasury, made a number of out-dated
basic assumptions about the connection between the economy and
the movement of people and goods. It virtually ignored electronic
communications and the knowledge economy, and had little meaningful
to say about transport in a carbon-constrained future. Despite
the welcome willingness of its author to discuss such matters,
it is to be feared that his final report will be used by both
Departments to fund further large infrastructure projects.
What realistically can the DfT achieve by 2010
and 2020 in terms of reducing transport-related carbon emissions,
and what role should demand management play in so doing?
2010
— To accept the principle of Contraction
and Convergence, and persuade other Departments to follow suit.
— Establish a high-level cross-Departmental
working group to ensure other Departments' activities and strategies
support those of the DfT.
— Work out agreements on amounts
of carbon reduction per level of transport intervention.
— Develop packages of policy measures
to reduce traffic and emissions.
— Impose stringent new standards
of vehicle and fuel efficiency.
— Introduce incremental modal
shift targets on highway authorities, with links to funding consequences.
— Roll out nationwide environmentally
focused Road User Charging scheme.
2020
— Total car fleet to have Intelligent
Speed Adaptation.
— Major reductions in highway
capacity achieved.
— Carbon rationing working successfully.
— Carbon emissions from transport
falling.
What specific steps can the Department take now
to reduce road transport carbon emissions and congestion over
the next decade?
For specific steps now, Sustrans suggests:
— Adopt a target of cutting transport
emissions 60% by 2030.
— Adopt and implement the VIBAT
report.
— Bring in a moratorium on airport
expansion.
— Halt the major road schemes
programme.
— Issue guidance on reducing carbon
emissions within the Transport Infrastructure Fund Guidance.
— Issue a Supplement on reducing
carbon emissions within Local Transport Plan Guidance.
— Strengthen links with Health
policy.
— Set targets for traffic reduction.
— Re-introduce national targets
to increase cycling.
— Transfer more staff to work
on cycling and walking matters.
— Have a partnership arrangement
with Sustrans to develop the National Cycle Network, Safe Routes
to School, and TravelSmart in a structured manner nationwide.
— Ensure its draft Manual for
Streets adequately gives priority to non-car modes.
— Re-establish the concept of
a road-user hierarchy.
— Ensure all Local Transport Plans
are based on firm data and robust evidence.
— Reform the Accessibility Planning
Guidance to include traffic and carbon reduction and a priority
for non-motorised modes.
— Introduce a 60 mph motorway
speed limit (calculated by the Slower Speeds Initiative to save
around 1 million tonnes of carbon annually).
— Decrease capital spending, increase
revenue spending.
POWERING FUTURE
VEHICLES PROGRAMME
Sustrans have not been involved in this and
we have no detailed comments here. However, we wish to issue some
words of caution:
(a) Biofuels. Very few of these produce a
net gain in carbon savings across the total system. Additionally
it is not wise to think of converting large areas of UK countryside
to fuel production at precisely the same time we will need a major
growth in local food production.
(b) Hydrogen. Best estimates of this are
that it is at least 30 years from being viable as a whole-system
fuel. Further, the establishment of a hydrogen infrastructure
will be massively energy-intensive—which in the context
of increasing energy insecurity and shortage is, in our view,
an extremely important obstacle.
(c) Speed. The climate change issue is the
ideal time to introduce lower-powered, speed-limited vehicles.
(d) Locking in the benefits. Great care needs
to be taken to ensure that "green fuels, green cars"
do not—as in the past—allow drivers to think that
all is well and travel demand can remain unrestricted. The benefits
of more fuel-efficient, carbon-constrained vehicles must be "locked
in" to the transport system to ensure a real reduction in
emissions is made. Measures to do this include fiscal policy,
major redistribution of highway space away from the car, and high
quality public transport, walking and cycling as local journey
replacements.
CONCLUSION
Restraining carbon emissions from transport
will need a wide range of fiscal, technical, policy and funding
measures across the DfT and all Government departments. It will
need a fundamental re-think of how and why we move people and
goods. This re-think has barely started and Sustrans welcomes
this Inquiry as a means of injecting some real urgency into the
debate.
February 2006
| 
