1. Introduction

"The [last] 25 years....however tortuous and difficult they may have seemed, have been the easy politics of the environment. The next 25 years will be dominated by the need to tackle the hard politics of the environment."

This 1997 statement by Tom Burke, former adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment, is quoted in the Henley Centre’s report "Planning for Local Change", 1998, which highlights the increasing importance of "sustainability" as a key driver of public policy. The Henley Centre report emphasises the significance of transport within the sustainability agenda, and the quotation above is equally true in relation to the politics of transport, particularly in our cities.

Policy changes that have taken place over the last 25 years have been incremental in nature, and the way in which the transport system has evolved has been seen to bring major benefits, with few apparent losers. Corrective measures, where they have been necessary, have been applied to one-off problems. Wider negative impacts have been hidden and dispersed, often affecting the less well-off in society most severely and reinforcing the market pressures towards greater car ownership and use that have been the dominant feature of this period.

A combination of factors is now bringing about an agenda for radical change away from dependence on the car. Environmental issues are predominant in driving this change, but concerns about congestion, the economic health of cities, road safety, personal health, and social exclusion are also important. The eventual outcome of a period of several years of prevarication and tortured debate has been John Prescott’s Integrated Transport White Paper, which reflects the new agenda and introduces new opportunities to bring about the necessary change.

In this paper I will examine the potential use of road pricing - one of the tools necessary for the implementation of the new agenda, but one which highlights the fact that we are now having to deal with the "hard politics" of transport. Successful implementation of this type of measure will depend critically on taking a new approach to public involvement. Without achieving consensus, no politician will take the risk of moving forward with road pricing, there will be little restraint on car use, and we would be unlikely to achieve the change in transport patterns that I believe is essential to the continuing economic success of this country.

2. Urban transport trends and policy over the last 25+ years

In 1950 there were 4 million vehicles on Britain’s roads. Today there are 25.6 million. In 1950 the average distance travelled was 8 km a day compared with 40km today. John Adams of University College, London forecasts that this figure could be 100km by 2025 under current trends. Car ownership continues to grow, and is growing particularly fast in cities. Edinburgh experienced an increase in car ownership per head of 47% between 1981 and 1991, compared to 29% for the UK as a whole. At the same time the mileage per vehicle continues to increase.

In parallel to growth in car use, there has been a substantial decline in the use of public transport, especially buses within our cities. Bus and coach travel for the UK has declined by about 30% in 25 years; but in spite of this, the vast majority of the growth in car traffic is new trips that were simply not made before. Acquiring a car does not mean simply getting off the bus and into the car instead: it brings about a transformation to lifestyle.

In response to these trends, local authorities and national government have attempted to provide greater capacity for motorised traffic where pressures are greatest, and to limit traffic in some city centres through parking controls and pedestrianisation. Ever reducing public finance for transport has been concentrated primarily on roads. There has been minimal public investment in public transport, and very little attempt to manage the road infrastructure in its favour. Professional traffic engineers managed the road network on efficiency criteria based on the basis of throughput of vehicles - not efficiency in moving people.

In the public perception, everything has worked towards the car culture, reflected in Mrs Thatcher’s belief in "the great car economy". Motoring costs have reduced relative to inflation, while public transport costs have increased significantly (see Table 1) as the system was been left to sink or swim in the market after 1985. The image of the car has been sold as the image of tomorrow, providing a lifestyle of freedom and independence. Modern developments for offices, shops and leisure activities increasingly located outside conventional city centres where car access was easy (but of course public transport could not be provided effectively).

Table 1 Trends in private and public transport costs 1984-1994

	Cost index 1994 (1984=100)	Change in cost 1984-1994 relative to RPI All Goods and Services
All goods & services	162	-
Private All motoring costs	158	-2%
Petrol and oil	138	-15%
Public Rail fares	191	+18%
Bus fares	201	+24%

 

There have of course been downsides to these changes over many years - accidents, congestion and environmental problems are not new. But the policies adopted to tackle these have, to date, been the "easy politics" referred to in the introduction. Road safety has been tackled by engineering measures to vehicles themselves, and also to the road system by increasing segregation of people from traffic. Congestion has been tackled by investing in increased capacity at pinch points or indeed wholesale construction of new strategic routes. Environmental issues have been dealt with on a one-off basis, such as the removal of lead from petrol when the relationship between lead and children’s development became understood.

Other effects, rather more intangible, have not been tackled in a positive way or even seen necessarily as problems by the public or transport planners. For example, the relationship between traffic and economic health has generally been perceived as beneficial, traffic growth being an indicator of economic health rather than a threat to it. The link between travel habits and health and social problems has been largely unrecognised, although growing car dependency and less walking and cycling is clearly a factor in inadequate exercise. Lack of access to a car is increasingly limiting access for low income groups and non-car users (children, elderly etc) to essential activities, including education and jobs, as these activities move to locations that are less accessible by public transport, as public transport levels of service decline, and as public transport becomes more expensive.

There clearly have been losers from the way in which urban transport has evolved. However, the losses have been very gradual, and indirect rather than the result of specific and identifiable actions. Those affected may not even be aware of the change or its underlying causes. The losers are dispersed, and tend to be those with less voice in the corridors of power. Overall, the perception of the public at large seems until recently to have been that any drawbacks from the growth in car use are considerably offset by the benefits.

3. The new transport agenda

In recent years however, attitudes have been changing, led largely by environmental concerns. Radical opponents to road building have taken the headlines, closely followed by the scientific community coming to agree that global warming was a real threat to the future of us all. These concerns have resulted in political action.

This year has seen another crop of floods, droughts, tornadoes and record weather conditions of one kind or another. The risk that this is simply the start of a potentially more widespread set of catastrophes resulting from global warming has over the last five years led politicians throughout the world to set themselves targets for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. Transport is currently the fastest growing source of CO₂ emissions.

At the same time, the economic impacts of congestion have given rise to increasing concern in the business community. The competitiveness of a dense and congested country such as the UK could be affected by reduction in business efficiency resulting from congestion. Furthermore, the indirect economic effects are becoming more obvious. In our cities, competitive pressures to attract business, jobs and visitors has led to an awareness that the quality of life on offer is an important factor in locational decisions and is dependent on traffic intrusiveness, congestion and pollution amongst other things.

The costs caused by high traffic levels are a burden on the community as a whole. The National Health Service has to pick up much of the bill for treatment of accident injuries and ill-health resulting from pollution; business and its customers pay for the costs caused by the inefficiencies of congestion; we all pay to insure and repair damage caused by extreme weather conditions due to global warming. These are real, money, costs and the existing system that imposes these costs on the community at large rather than on the cause, is unfair.

The growing realisation that current transport trends were not sustainable in either environmental or economic terms has led the European Commission and a number of national governments including that of the UK to undertake a radical change in policy direction. The EU has produced policy statements on a "Citizen’s network" - a transport system available to all that reduces the need for car dependency - and on "Fair and Efficient Pricing" to ensure that road users pay the full costs - including external cost - of their journeys, and has legislated on air quality. In the UK, the previous government introduced a UK strategy for sustainable development, which amongst other things led to the production in July the Integrated Transport White Paper.

The relatively small scale measures being undertaken currently in the UK to try and mitigate the effects of traffic and slow down growth are having limited impact, even in the cities in which they are being applied. In Edinburgh, which I believe has been one of the leading cities in this respect, there appears to be increasing public concern, and awareness, of increasing problems of congestion. But the measures being taken to improve the effectiveness of public transport are seen as insufficient to compensate for perceived (rather than actual) restraints on car use.

There currently exists a dichotomy of view. The classic opinion that "we must all use our cars less, but I cannot do without mine" is widely held. At the same time there is widespread awareness that "we cannot go on as we are", and that environmental and congestion problems are becoming very pressing. The indications are that the approach to transport policy of the last five years or so will not resolve this dilemma, that the individual will not feel motivated to change her or his travel decisions, even when aware of the global need for action. The "easy politics" that have been adopted up to now are unlikely to achieve traffic reduction.

4. A way forward - playing for higher stakes

1. New ways of working with the public

1. The way forward in Edinburgh

Edinburgh has been perceived as being at the forefront of the development of new approaches to urban transport policy, and as highlighting the need for a holistic approach to tackling the issues. The City of Edinburgh Council’s moving FORWARD transport strategy has been seminal in this respect. But it is now time to review and update that strategy, which included a short term action plan aimed at stabilising traffic levels by 2000. Longer term targets required the reduction of car traffic by 2010, and much more radical measures than those adopted to date will be needed to achieve this. Yet concern about traffic levels is as great if not greater now that it was in 1994 when the strategy was launched. This may well be an issue of perception rather than fact.

At the same time public funding for transport investment has reduced signficantly over the period. The use of the new charging powers outlined in the Transport White Paper appears to be the only way out of the dilemma.

However, discussion of new revenue-raising powers has identified two essential prerequisites if there is to be any chance of implementation:

· Acceptance of the principle of hypothecation by both central government and local authorities - by the former to give local authorities control of the revenues raised; by the latter to ensure the funds are used for transport rather than other local authority services.

· Acceptance of the principle of additionality, again by both central government and local authorities - ensuring that the funds raised are not simply substituted for other sources of funding.

A further requirement is likely to be to ensure that at least some of the investment in alternatives to the car is in place before road user charging is introduced. To achieve such up-front funding will require new approaches to financial engineering which may well have repercussions in terms of the accountability and transparency of the arrangements set up.

The public and political sensitivity of these matters means that the focus for producing a new transport strategy for the city potentially incorporating road user charging will be around the development of a wide range of partnerships. Partnerships are needed with the public, with business and with neighbouring local authorities many of whose citizens will be very much part of the strategy. Partnership will be required with the private sector particularly in relation to financial matters. Partnership will be needed with central government and the Scottish parliament to ensure an acceptable statutory framework. And partnership will be needed with academic institutions and other public bodies to support the development of the programme.

Innovative approaches to developing many of these partnerships will be needed, and this process has already been started in the city. However, firm decisions on any major development programme towards road user charging will not be made until next year.

2. Conclusion

 ………….