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 look at the change in approach that will be necessary to achieve sustainable transport and sustainable cities.

 

 

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 77% between 1981 and 1997, compared to around 40% for the UK as a whole. At the same time the mileage per vehicle continues to increase. While the growth rate is very high, overall levels of car ownership in most of the UK are still relatively low compared to European or US cities.

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 little attempt to manage the road infrastructure in its favour. Professional traffic engineers traditionally 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". Public transport costs have increased significantly relative to inflation, while motoring costs are still increasing less quickly in spite of the fuel duty escalator (see Table 1). 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 1984-1998

	Cost index Dec 1998 (1984=100)	Change in cost 1984-1998 relative to RPI All Goods and Services
All goods & services	187	-
Private All motoring costs	183	-2%
Petrol and oil	176	-6%
Public Rail fares	234	+25%
Bus fares	229	+22%

 

The drawbacks of these trends have existed 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 intellectual 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.

Last year saw 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 of the Integrated Transport White Paper for the UK and a similar paper for Scotland, followed by the family of "daughter" papers that are still appearing.

The question that must then be asked is: can this new agenda deliver the scale of change necessary to stop the vast momentum behind current trends?

4. Piloting a new approach: moving FORWARD in Edinburgh

1. The next step - playing for higher stakes

In Edinburgh there appears to be growing public concern, and awareness, of problems of congestion. In spite of the implementation of the moving FORWARD Action Plan, concern about traffic levels is as great if not greater now that it was in 1994 when the strategy was launched. While this may well be an issue of perception rather than fact, it is undoubtedly the case that 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.

The only way forward I believe, is to enter the arena of "difficult politics". To do this we need to have a goal and a vision that will justify the risk. At the global level that goal may well be the survival of the planet, but a more positive and immediate vision is needed to inspire people. In transport terms, this might be an alternative to the car dominated city that is clean, pleasant, safe and enjoyable. A city with a healthy lifestyle, quiet streets and a relaxed atmosphere. A city with congestion at a minimum, little pollution and high air quality. A city for people, with space to mix and exchange ideas, business and culture, resulting in a strong economy, with good access to jobs for its citizens.

To achieve such a vision will indeed be difficult. Not only will it need money, planning and a consistent approach over a long time frame, but it will need a new mindset by professional transport planners. There is no doubt that both carrot and stick will be needed to achieve the transition, and that the measures adopted will need to be robust. The use of the new charging powers outlined in the Transport White Paper appears to be the only way out of the dilemma. The application of charges on road users can:

a) Relate the cost to the user of individual journeys more closely to the costs imposed (internal and external) - the stick;

b) Provide the funds that will be essential for upgrading the alternative choices to the motor car - the carrot.

However this key tool is undoubtedly "difficult politics". Experiences elsewhere in Europe have shown that there are huge hurdles to its successful introduction. These are not the technological hurdles on which so much effort has been focused over recent years, but political ones.

In western Europe, road pricing has been successfully introduced only in Norway. There have been high profile failures in Stockholm and in the Netherlands. Apart from that, a number of trials have been carried out, primarily to test the technology, and in a few cases to test behavioural responses by a very limited number of volunteers. The lessons of Stockholm in particular have been well documented and provide a useful case study ("Stockholm spent 20 years and $1billion before thinking again"-"Living with the car", The Economist, December 1997), whilst Norwegian studies give a profile of (the only) successes in Europe.

Research into the development of road user charging so far has reached a very powerful conclusion:

"Urban road pricing can be accepted only if there are very strong advantages to be supported by a majority of citizens. This will only happen if there are important improvements to the quality of life and to the level of service of the town’s transport system." (Marc Ellenberg, "Urban Road Pricing in European Cities: The Way Forward", PTRC/AET Sept 1998).

But in order to gain acceptance it is not sufficient just for transport planners to understand the advantages and effects on a city’s transport system and quality of life. These advantages have to be demonstrated to the public, to business and to other interest groups - and these groups must have ownership of the concept, it cannot be imposed from above.

 

2. Working with the community

1. Conclusion

………….