Effective road and traffic management

Written evidence from liftshare (ETM 19)

1. The following submission is on behalf of liftshare, a social enterprise helping people travel more sustainably by sharing their car journeys.

2. Effective road and traffic management features highly within the transport agenda, because of the impact it can have on congestion, at the present and in the future. Tackling congestion has its clear merits and it can be argued that inaction would seriously restrict the future of the UK transport sector and the nation’s economy. The economic cost of inaction against congestion could waste an extra £22 billion’s worth of time in England alone by 20251. In these straitened times opportunities for savings must be fully utilised.

3. The very real cost that congestion places on our economy means that the Government and Local Authorities should take every step to intervene and combat congestion. Public acceptance to intervention may vary as some methods such as the abandoned road charging could be viewed as a further weapon in the ‘war on the motorist.’ Whereas other measures such as car-sharing are likely to be more readily accepted as it acts to assist in reducing congestion but provides tangible benefits to those sharing. With fuel prices reaching record levels, the public will be glad of a measure that can help lift the financial burden of motoring. At current petrol prices it costs an extra £8.04 to fill up a small family car compared to January 2010, and a staggering £20.64 extra than January 20092.

4. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) will provide further reasoning for Local Authority intervention. The £560m fund will be open to bids that demonstrate value for money, deliverability and proof that they are affordable3. An independent research project undertaken by the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Rural Car-Share Feasibility Study (April 2010), has shown that having a liftshare car-share scheme is a very cost-effective tool (at an estimated cost of just £0.017 per vehicle kilometre reduced) 4. For every reduction in vehicle kilometre travelled there will be the associated congestion relief. With this in mind the Government should be encouraging all Local Authorities to enter bids that include car-sharing for the LSTF.

5. A key contributing factor to our congestion problem is the culture and behaviour of road users. Currently the focus is concentrated on convenience and travelling when the user defines. This mentality leads to single occupancy travel; in 2008, 60% of cars on the road had only one occupant5. Single occupancy journeys not only limit the efficiency of the car journey itself, but decreases the efficiency of the road network. A change in behaviour is necessary to try and make the more efficient use of the car a key theme for those making car journeys where no other options are available. Increasing occupancy would lead to a reduction in road traffic and therefore congestion.

6. It also stands to reason to begin to try and act on the base of the problem of congestion. Fundamentally it is our driving habits that create these pressure points and load the network with un-workable levels. Even new road network developments that have undergone designing to limit congestion can suffer a similar fate without the cooperation of the road users themselves. To solve the problem, they need to realise that some of their actions, such as single occupancy travel are the cause. It is therefore clear that the behaviour change of road users needs to be targeted as part of the drive to reduce congestion.

7. Intelligent traffic management schemes have been suggested as other means of reducing congestion. Intelligent traffic management tackles congestion through the introduction of new technology to make the best use of existing road space, whilst maintaining and hopefully improving road safety standards. This requires the installation of new infrastructure such as lighting, gantries, electronic and static signing and CCTV that are all managed in an off-site control room. This can be a costly investment whereas reducing congestion through the use of a well managed car-share scheme takes advantage of developed current technology minimising costs and decreasing lead times. There is also no need for any new infrastructure and possibly more importantly the benefits from car-sharing are not limited to one stretch of road as is the case for intelligent traffic management schemes.

8. Yes, intelligent traffic management schemes do have a positive impact, but there is considerable cost and only a small locality receives the advantageous effects. These weaken the business case for the schemes and point towards car-sharing being a more attractive option. Car-sharing is not just restricted to a small section of the road network but is indeed one of the most versatile congestion reducing measures. Car-sharing can encompass the major road network and urban roads. Not to mention rural environments. Even in locations where walking and cycling schemes are not viable because of infrastructure limitations or excessive journey distances, car-sharing can still be successful. Car-sharing has equally been proven to improve road safety standards; ‘when one or more passengers are present accident risk is reduced (approx. 25%). The size of the passenger effect is about the same as the sex-of-driver effect’6.

9. An alternative method of approaching congestion is to manage the road layout, which in turn will modify the traffic flows. The introduction of High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) lanes provides real congestion benefits and journey time savings, particularly when general purpose lanes are congested. Only one year after the A447 Stanningley Road, Leeds was opened time savings were being realised by both those using the lane and other single occupant vehicles in the adjacent lane. Journey times fell by 4 minutes in the morning peak on a journey normally taking 10 minutes. And single-occupancy vehicles saw a 1 minute 30 second journey time saving when using the adjacent non-car-share lane 7. What's more is that HOV lanes can ‘lock-in’ the congestion benefits as they act as a very visible reminder for the benefits of car-sharing. Commuters who see these lanes daily are more likely to partake in sharing in the future as they will be constantly reminded that those who are travelling with others receive the reward of being allowed to use the quieter lane and have a faster journey.

10. The closure of the M4 bus lane would provide the ideal opportunity to convert this to a HOV lane and reduce congestion on the 3.5 mile stretch where the bus lane is currently. This would also provide a high-profile example of promoting sustainable travel especially with the media attention this section of motorway has received. It will be a significant lost opportunity to relieve congestion and promote the seriousness that this Government takes in backing sustainable travel, if this lane is converted to a general purpose lane.

11. Future trends for congestion do not make desirable reading either. The Department for Transport forecast a long term continual growth in traffic, despite declines in traffic levels in 2008 and 20098. This will further populate a network that in places cannot fully cope at present day levels. Secondly forecasts from the National Transport Model suggest that motor vehicle traffic in 2035 will be 43% higher than in 20038. With the future of UK transport looking likely to be growing rapidly action against congestion will need to be swift.

12. In summary car-sharing has numerous reasons supporting its effectiveness as a method of reducing congestion. As a low cost, versatile option car-sharing has the potential to play a major role in reducing congestion in coming years. It is not only congestion relief that car-sharing provides but notable emission savings also. If the national average car occupancy can be raised from 1.6 to 2 people, the UK’s CO2 emissions from cars will experience a 20% reduction9. With the UK Government committed to a 80% reduction by 2050 this can provide a valuable saving.

13. Car-sharing is currently offering one of the strongest cases for how to suitably manage the roads and traffic to reduce congestion, so should feature in any plans that aim tackle this. Not to mention the other complementary benefits car-sharing can provide such as improving access, reducing social exclusion, decreasing demand for limited fossil fuels and a reduction in pollution.

1 Eddington, R. 2006, The Eddington Transport Study: The Case for Action, Department for Transport, pp. 1-64.

2 Calculations based on a 50 litre fuel tank capacity.

January 2009 Petrol price: 86.6 pence per litre (Source: AA Fuel Price Report January 2009)

Source: http://www.theaa.com/onlinenews/allaboutcars/fuel/2009/january2009.pdf

January 2010 Petrol price: 111.8 pence per litre (Source: AA Fuel Price Report January 2010)

Source: http://www.theaa.com/onlinenews/allaboutcars/fuel/2010/january2010.pdf

January 2011 Petrol price: 127.88 pence per litre (Source: http://www.petrolprices.com/ Accessed 10th January 2011)

3 Local Sustainable Transport Fund, Written Statement Norman Baker. Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/baker20101213

4 Integrated Transport Planning - Yorkshire and Humber Rural Access to Opportunities Programme - Regional Rural Car Share Feasibility Study. Source: https://www.liftshare.com/business/research.asp

5 Department for Transport – Transport Trends 2009

Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/190425/220778/trends2009.pdf

6 Reiß, J., and Krüger, H.-P., 1995. Accident risk modified by passengers. In C.N. Kloeden, A.J. McLean (Eds.), Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety-T'95 (213–221). Adelaide: NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit.

Source: http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments/instrument029/l2_029c.htm

8 Department for Transport - Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2010

Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/latest/tsgb2010roads.pdf

9 Niches 2007 - Bührmann, S., 2007. Urban Lift-sharing Services, Niches, pp.1-12.

January 2011