Moving People – Changing Expectations London Challenges for Road Transport Phil Goodwin Professor of Transport Policy Centre for Transport and Society, UWE Bristol

A caveat Nothing in this presentation necessarily reflects the thinking, policies, logic, analysis, interpretation, conclusions, recommendations or even footnotes of the Committee on Climate Change or Commission for Integrated Transport. (Though it’s not far from what was said by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1994, and many Government statements, both Conservative and Labour, since then)

The basic challenge The British Government, having determined that climate change is a real and present danger requiring reduction in carbon emissions, has not yet decided exactly what contribution should be expected from transport… and two opposing views are developing.

All agree that transport is the biggest sector … … for which carbon dioxide emissions are still increasing; …where reducing carbon involves substantial personal behavioural change; …where that behavioural change has other effects apart from reducing carbon; …where worldwide application of our own behaviour would be quite impossible…

So two views: ‘Transport is too complicated’ – let it grow because that will be popular and/or good for economy, let other sectors reduce carbon more. ‘Transport is best placed to make an extra contribution’ – with advantages to congestion, fuel, economy, safety, health and social inclusion.

What could be done? Reduce travel, go to nearer destinations, shift mode to public transport, walking, cycling, drive more slowly and carefully, use smaller and/or more efficient cars, avoid congested times and locations… Influenced by fares, taxes, pricing, restrictions, planning, investment, quality of service, speeds, priorities, market incentives, regulation, education, smarter choices…

What does that remind you of? We do not come blind to this new problem, because we have been talking about the same things for years, for different reasons. Let’s look at why.

The image of desirable transport has shifted, from this...

To this...

CARS IN TOWNS In the cities we moved WHY?

Law of unstable systems Any system operating close to maximum capacity and with random variation has poor service quality and is unstable and prone to catastrophic breakdowns when there are small additional problems

Fundamental law of traffic The more traffic there is the slower it goes… ‘Traffic will inevitably grow…’ So build more roads? Speed Traffic

BUT The supply of road space cannot keep pace with the unrestricted demand for it – for financial, economic, planning, social and environmental reasons If supply cannot match demand – we must manage demand to match supply

If supply cannot match demand, must manage demand to match supply Pedestrianisation, traffic calming, control reallocation of road capacity public transport, walking, cycling land use planning prices which reflect full costs including congestion and environmental damage ‘soft’ measures – travel plans, information…

Evidence from experience, not models Increases in road capacity induce traffic, and capacity reduction reduces traffic Well planned pedestrianisation is commercially successful Transport prices do change travel choices ‘Soft’ measures change individual behaviour substantially Reductions in car use of the order of 20% are quite common, and 100% car-free areas work.

Shift in the argument From ‘if we can’t match supply to demand then we will have to match demand to supply’ To ‘actually it’s a pretty good idea to reduce traffic for reasons of social and economic efficiency’ (not ‘we will be forced to reduce car use to save the planet’ but ‘the policies we should be doing anyway to make better more efficient cities, will also help save the planet’).

Conclusion We should not throw away everything we have learned about the traffic problem, when we seek to tackle the problem of climate change.