Written evidence from Stephen Plowden
(TE 98)
SUMMARY
Not all economic activities and growth are desirable.
There is an urgent need to reduce unemployment and to redress
the balance of the economy between economic sectors and geographical
regions. However, this must be done in a way which gives pride
of pace to reducing transport's contribution to climate change
and also helps to reduce the social injustices inherent in present
transport arrangements.
It is very important to enforce speed limits properly;
the best way is by fitting vehicles with variable speed limiters.
New vehicles should be manufactured with these limiters, and a
mass programme of retrofitting existing vehicle should be undertaken.
This programme, which would be partly funded by the state, should
be used to reduce unemployment.
Minimising the need to travel is an important way
of reducing all the costs and nuisances of transport. Recent technical
advances make it possible for many commuting and business journeys
to be replaced by telecommunications. The government should ensure
that all regions are well served by broadband and should also
be prepared to help provide businesses or individual people with
the necessary equipment.
To keep journeys short, and to ensure that when longer
journeys are necessary they can be made by public transport, the
facilities required for everyday living should be provided in
every neighbourhood, and those too large or specialised for that
to be possible should be located near public transport stops.
These aims can be achieved by locating governmental facilities
appropriately, by planning permission for private developments,
and by using money from transport budgets to promote a suitable
configuration of facilities. For example, facilities which are
too small to be commercially viable, but are justified in terms
of social cost-benefit, should be subsidised by money which would
otherwise be spent on transport.
Inadequate user rules mean that the existing roads
are not being used to the best effect. The principal reforms required
in towns are lower and better enforced speed limits, more reallocation
of space away from cars to pedestrians, cyclists, buses and sometimes
also goods vehicles, controls over non-residential off-street
parking places. Lower, better enforced speed limits are needed
on roads outside towns. A simple nationwide system of road pricing
for lorries should be introduced, and there may be a case for
road pricing for cars on motorways and selected A roads.
A modest programme of investment will be required
to implement these management measures, which should sometimes
be accompanied by relatively minor investment in new infrastructure.
But until the reforms have been implemented and their effects
observed, no case can be made for any general increase in road
capacity. The national road programme should be scrapped.
These reforms to the user rules for roads would allow
large cuts to be made to the huge and regressive subsidy now given
to rail. It is probable that a substantial programme of individually
relatively small railway improvements can be justified, but neither
Crossrail nor HS2 can be. They both work against the restructuring
of the economy that the government rightly seeks, and their huge
costs, and, especially for HS2, environmental damage, are unacceptable.
THE NEEDS
1. It is clear from the Transport Committee's
call for evidence that that both the Secretary of State for Transport
and the Committee itself attach very great importance to encouraging
economic growth. Since the size of a country's economy is measured
by GDP, it is presumably an increase in Britain's GDP that the
Secretary of State and the Committee want to see. But GDP is not
a measure of prosperity or welfare. It is only a (somewhat deficient)
measure of economic activity, which can and often does include
activities which are environmentally or socially undesirable.
If the aim is to make Britain a better place to live in, both
for its present inhabitants and for posterity, it is therefore
very important to discriminate between economic activities and
to select quite carefully the ones to be encouraged.
2. In the present economic circumstances the
focus should be on reducing the unemployment resulting both from
the recession and from the severe and rapid cuts which, whether
wisely or not, are being made to reduce the deficit. There is
also a need to rebalance the economy, both in terms of economic
sectors and of geographical regions, both in order to reduce the
risk of another financial crisis and also for wider social reasons.
(It is to the new government's credit that it has recognised this
need, although unfortunately, as discussed in paragraphs 20 to
22 below, its two most important proposals for investment in transport
work against it.) We should also seek to minimise expenditure
on transport in order to limit the need for damaging cuts in other
sectors.
3. These current concerns must be addressed in
ways which take account of climate change, which is the greatest
challenge of our times, and which also reduce the heavy social
and environmental costs of transport and the injustices inherent
in our present transport arrangements. The injustice in road transport
is that poorer people who have benefited least from the growth
in car ownership and use, which has been the dominant trend of
the last sixty years, have also suffered most from its adverse
consequences. The mobility of people without cars has been markedly
reduced by the decline in local bus services, the worsening of
conditions for walking and cycling, and the trend for facilities
of every kind to become larger in size but fewer in number and
therefore harder to access except by car. At the same time, poorer
people, whether car owners or not, are disproportionately exposed
to the danger, noise, air pollution and visual intrusion which
the huge increase in motor traffic has brought about. In addition,
the huge subsidies to rail (amounting to £5.2 billion last
year according to the Economist of 18 August) mostly benefit
better off people and people in London and the south-east, the
richest part of the country. Many poorer people rarely if ever
take a train.
SHORT-TERM
JOB CREATION
4. The most important of measures, discussed
very briefly below, to manage transport better concern speed.
The speed limits on most roads are too high, but whether they
are reduced or not the same problem of how best to enforce them
arises. The best method is through variable speed limiters on
the vehicle. (It is now compulsory for lorries and coaches to
be fitted with top-speed limiters. Although top-speed limiters
have proved very valuable, they do not enforce compliance with
speed limits on roads of all classes as variable speed limiters
would do.) Variable speed limiters are of two kinds: driver-operated
or externally activated. There is still work to be done in the
development and testing of externally activated limiters, whereas
the technology of driver-operated limiters, which is virtually
identical to that of cruise control, is fully established. We
know that driver-operated speed limiters would work and what the
extra cost of fitting them to new cars in the process of mass
production would be, and we have a reasonable idea of what the
cost of retrofitting cars already on the road would be.
5. All cars should be fitted with variable speed
limiters. When externally activated limiters have been developed
and approved, drivers who preferred them would be allowed to have
them, but in the meantime cars should be fitted with driver-operated
speed limiters. The responsibility of knowing what the speed limit
on each road is would remain with the driver (subject, as at present,
to the limits being properly signed), although drivers who wanted
the additional aid of GPS systems and computerized maps (when
they become available) showing what the speed limits are on each
section of road could of course buy and use them. The cost
of fitting new vehicles with speed limiters would be borne by
the manufacturer and passed on to the driver, just as happens
with other mandatory features, such as exhausts and seat belts,
at present. But the cost of retrofit is much higher and it would
not be very fair to make owners pay the full cost of improving
a vehicle which complied with all the regulations in force when
it was bought, especially when most of the benefits of the improvement
would accrue to other members of society rather than to the individual
owner. There is therefore a good case for the state to contribute
to the cost of retrofit.
6. The programme of retrofit would take several
years, which is a good thing as high unemployment is also likely
to be with us for years. The employment would be spread over all
regions, and although some training would be required, the work
should be suitable for most of the people who are now unemployed
but seeking work. In our study Speed Control and Transport
Policy, published by PSI in1996, Mayer Hillman and I showed
that retrofitting the 23 million cars then on the road would pay
very handsomely just in terms of crash and casualty reduction,
without regard to the other important benefits that compliance
with speed limits would bring. This finding must be even more
true now. Our calculation assumed full employment, whereas a programme
of retrofit should be used to employ people who would otherwise
be unemployed. In addition, the reduction of the official discount
rate from 8% in 1996 to 3.5% today increases the benefit/cost
ratio.
ACTION IN
TRANSPORT COMPARED
WITH ACTION
IN OTHER
SECTORS
7. Conventional methods of regional planning,
such as inducements to invest in those industries and regions
most in need of it, and the location of the government's own offices
and of universities, research centres, cultural facilities and
so on, are like to be more important than transport policies in
bringing about the required rebalancing of the economy. However,
transport measures could help to improve local commuting, especially
for people without cars, who are most in need of help. The quality
of the local environment can be an influential factor in deciding
where businesses locate. Ttraffic is one of the biggest threats
to that, so measures of traffic restraint could be important in
that respect as well as in others. There is also a great deal
that can be done to reduce carbon emissions from transport.
REDUCING THE
NEED TO
TRAVEL
8. The best way to reduce all the costs of transport,
resource costs as well as environmental and social costs, is
to find ways of satisfying the same journey purposes as at present
while travelling less. The ideal would be to get rid of the need
to travel altogether. Recent advances in telecommunications make
this a real possibility for many commuting and business journeys.
Personal computers and email have made it possible for many office
workers to work at home one or more days a week. There seems
to be a trend in this direction already (I think there are some
statistics on this but I have not had time to research it). The
trend is likely to grow spontaneously and it could also be encouraged
by policy, including the reforms to the other modes discussed
below. Both road and rail congestion could be substantially reduced
in this way. Business travel could be reduced by teleconferencing,
which has now reached such a high standard that it as if the participants
were in the same room. Business journeys account for 19% of long-distance
car journeys in Britain, 22% of long-distance rail journeys and
58% of domestic air journeys, so teleconferencing could help significantly
to reduce travel by all modes.(1) Government has a
role to ensure that all regions, but especially those with the
most severe problems of unemployment, are provided with broadband
(this may be happening already). In addition, there may be scope
for helping businesses, and/or individuals who want to work from
home, to obtain the necessary equipment.
9. Land-use planning can be used to ensure that
the facilities required for everyday living are located in each
neighbourhood, thus allowing daily needs to be satisfied by short
journeys. The shorter the journey, the more likely it is to be
made by foot or by cycle. If a short journey is made by car, it
still causes less danger, pollution and other nuisance than a
longer one. Facilities too large or specialised to be provided
in each neighbourhood should be located close to public transport
stops. Not only would this help travellers without cars, it also
makes it more likely that people who do have the option of a car
will use public transport instead, so reducing all the costs
and nuisances of car travel.
10. Public organisations, such as the NHS, government
departments and local authorities, should follow these principles
in deciding the number, size and location of their own facilities.
The same principles should guide planning authorities in deciding
development applications made by private firms or people. Local
authorities should also be given powers to subsidise facilities
which are too small to be commercially self-supporting but which
can be justified by a cost-benefit analysis taking account of
environmental and social considerations. In effect, local authorities'
transport budgets should become accessibility budgets, allowing
money to be diverted from transport to land use where that would
produce a better outcome.
MANAGEMENT BEFORE
INVESTMENT
11. At any time, but especially at times of financial
stringency such as the present, it makes sense to ensure that
the best use is being made of existing infrastructure before thinking
of adding to it. That would be true of any economic sector, but
especially of transport, where small schemes, such as bus priority
measures, road safety schemes, cycle tracks, commonly show much
higher benefit/cost ratios than major ones. Moreover, if management
measures do not work as expected, they can be altered, whereas
new infrastructure is inflexible. This consideration is of especial
importance at this time when there are major doubts about whether
travel and traffic would grow even under a business-as-usual scenario
with no attempt at restraint. The calculation of the benefits
from major schemes usually relies heavily on the assumption of
continuing growth.
12. In urban areas, the most important management
measures, supplementing policies to reduce the need to travel
which were discussed above, are lower and better enforced speed
limits, the reallocation of road space away from cars in favor
of pedestrians, cyclists and buses (and also, in certain circumstances,
good vehicles), and parking controls. Most urban car journeys,
except perhaps some longer ones in London and other conurbations,
are too short for increases in travel time resulting from lower
speeds to deter much car travel. But, in addition to other environmental
and safety gains, they would make cycling much safer. Danger is
the most important reason why people who would like to cycle do
not cycle now. The experience of towns, especially on the Continent,
which have created safe and agreeable conditions for cycling shows
that the suppressed demand is huge. Parking controls are potentially
a very powerful and discriminating means of control which are
now underused. In particular, there is a need to take control
of private non-residential spaces, especially in central areas.
The need is not so much to charge for these spaces as to reduce
their number, which will require new legislation.
13. Effective measures of traffic restraint in
towns would have some feedback effect on traffic levels on roads
outside towns. The most important reform needed on these roads
themselves is to reduce and enforce speed limits. In contrast
to the situation in towns, this would have a profound effect on
reducing car mileage, both by encouraging a shift to other modes
and, which is probably more important, by checking and reversing
the tendency for car journeys to become longer.
14. Many economists would put road pricing top
of their list of management measures, but lower speeds are more
important. If traffic volumes were reduced by pricing, speeds
would go up. Higher speeds would lead to higher crash and casualty
rates per vehicle mile, and also to higher rates of fuel consumption,
CO2 emissions and noise. Lower speeds would have a
similar effect as pricing on reducing vehicle mileage, but they
would reduce crash and other rates very significantly as well.
15. It is possible, however, that when everything
else had been done to reduce car mileage, there would still be
an undue degree of congestion on some motorways and major A roads.
If so, road pricing for cars could be considered on these roads.
Because the network is limited, with few and clearly defined access
points, implementation would be very easy. A drawback, however,
is that the charges could encourage drivers to divert to other
less suitable roads with higher crash rates. That should not happen
to any significant degree if properly enforced speed limits, lower
than the limits on motorways and dual carriageways, were in place
on the alternative routes.
16. The case for road pricing for lorries is
much stronger. The system should be kept very simple, with the
charge per mile depending only on the physical characteristics
of the vehicle, without regard to type of road, congestion or
any other consideration. Because of its simplicity this system
would be extremely easy to administer - Sweden used to have such
arrangements but was forced to give them up when on joining the
EU. A mileage-related charge would act as a constant incentive
to shippers and operators to consider such questions as: could
I find a nearer supplier; could I send my goods by rail; could
I delay a shipment in order to achieve a higher load factor? It
would also encourage the development of urban systems of goods
distribution organised on a town or area basis, and using vehicles
specially designed or selected for the task, rather than by firms
or products as at present. That could have important consequences
for personal travel as well. The presence of unsuitable lorries
is a major danger and deterrent to cyclists.
INVESTMENT
Supplementing management measures
17. Despite what the slogan "management
before investment" may suggest, implementing the kind of
management measures referred to above does of course require some
investment. It costs something to put in a bus lane or to pedestrianise
a shopping centre. There is also likely to be a need for some
new infrastructure to supplement measures to make better use of
the existing roads. Bus priority schemes may not always be enough;
new busways may be required as well. Although cycling policy should
concentrate on making it safer and more agreeable to cycle on
existing roads, there is also likely to be a need to construct
separate cycle paths or to provide bridges for bicycles over
main roads, railways or canals. Restricting car parking in town
centres may sometimes make sense only if park-and-ride car parks
are built elsewhere.
Investment in roads
18. The road programme has traditionally been
inspired by the supposed need to cater for growing demand. This
is no longer a sensible aim, even if perhaps it once was. No schemes
designed to bring about a general increases in capacity should
be considered until the required reforms to the regulatory and
fiscal framework have been implemented and their effects observed.
Some local road building to serve new developments will be required
and it is probably that some bypasses can also be justified.
Investment in rail
19. Lower speeds and the other reforms to the
rules for the use of the roads will give rise to some extra demand
for rail travel. On the other hand, these reforms will also allow
the huge subsidies to rail to be reduced (though, to be fair to
the people who have come to rely on them, they could be phased
out only gradually), which would dampen demand. The number of
rail journeys which could be replaced by telecommunications may
be quite high, and there may also be considerable scope for substituting
coach travel for rail.
20. I would guess that the net effect of all
these developments would be to reduce rather than increase the
demand rail travel. Even so, there could well be a case for all
sorts of local rail investments, which cumulatively might come
to quite a substantial programme.
But no case can be made for the two major schemes
which dominate rail investment at the moment, Crossrail and HS2.
21. I have already submitted a memo about Crossrail
to the Committee, and I hope the reason why there has been no
response is only that because of the summer recess members have
not yet had a chance to read it. To summarise drastically: a scheme
which is designed to increase employment in the financial centres
of central London obviously has no place in a strategy to rebalance
the economy both in terms of economic sectors and of geographical
regions; even if spending £16 billion on rail investment
in London could be justified, there are better ways of spending
it.
22. A high-speed rail network emanating from
London would reinforce the unhealthy predominance of London and
the south-east vis-à-vis other regions. Experience
shows that improving communications between an economically strong
region and a weaker one is at least as likely to suck activity
out of the weaker one as to help it. To the extent that transport
investment may have a part to play in redressing the UK's regional
imbalance, it should take the form of improvements within each
of the weaker regions, or possibly strengthening the connections
between them, leaving out London. None of the other arguments
for HS2, or for any other high-speed rail network Britain, stand
up. In particular, high-speed rail will not reduce but increase
carbon emissions from transport. It is a disquieting reflection
on the way that policy is formed in Britain that these plans ever
reached their current advanced stage of development.
Should the balance between revenue and capital
expenditure be altered?
23. The balance should indeed be altered in favour
of revenue expenditure, but as far as transport is concerned it
would be better to abolish this distinction altogether. It may
be necessary to have separate budgets for national transport expenditure
and for each major local authority, but there should be no ring
fencing or further divisions within these budgets. They should
be allocated between projects, whether large or small, regardless
of mode, according to their benefit-cost ratios, modified or reinforced
as necessary by environmental and social factors not included
in the cost-benefit calculations.
REFERENCE
(1) These statistics, which relate to the five-year
period 2002 to 2006, are derived from Figures 2 and 4 of Long
Distance Travel in Britain published by the Independent Transport
Commission in March 2010. The ultimate source is the National
Travel Survey.
September 2010
|
