Sustainable Transport Strategy in the UK
Jan-‐Dirk Schmöcker,
Kyoto University
Contents
• Outline
– Part 1: Rough overview of past “Sustainable Transport Policy” (STP) in the U.K. including criLcism
– Part 2: White Paper on Local STP, published in 2011 • Not a complete summary, highlight of some (what I believe) important points and possibly difference to Japanese policy
– Some comments
2
Around 10-‐15 years of UK STP? • There is no one definiLon of STP • Arguably development of STP started with discussion on “predict and provide” vs. “induced transport” (Noland, 2007): – 1989: Roads to prosperity – 1994 SACTRA (Standing Advisory Commi\ee on Trunk Road Assessment) accepted “One can not build his way out of conges7on”
– Led to change manifested in 1998 Transport White Paper: A New Deal for Transport, Be\er for Everyone (New Labour policy)
– 2000 Ten year plan released
3
STP and Project Appraisal • White Paper led to (?) new guidelines for project appraisal: – NATA: New approach to appraisal – SEA: Strategic Environmental Assessment (EU) – GOMMMS (Guidance on the Methodology for MulL-‐Modal Studies)
• Inclusion of a large range of wider social and environmental effects on transport
• How to evaluate/ weight such benefits? E.g. induced traffic: Environmental effects ofen due to long-‐term land-‐use effects (Noland, 2007)
4
CriLcism of UK policy • Noland (2007), Begg and Gray (2008): – Fuel-‐duty escalator introduced in 1993: Increase petrol prizes every year by 3% (1993), 5% (1997) and then 6% above inflaLon rates -‐ 2000: afer fuel protests, compromises.
– Few of the policies proposed in 2000 have actually been implemented
– RecogniLon of Induced Demand? Rhetoric for Transport Policy: Easier to jusLfy investments based on congesLon reducLon, Road building has not stopped
– Only 2 CongesLon Charging Schemes in the UK yet
5
CriLcism of UK policy (2)
• “Traffic Jam – 10 years of Sustainable Transport in the UK” (Edt: Docherty and Shaw, 2008) – Heavily criLcise difference between planned policy and actual implementaLons • Tram schemes abandoned • Back to big road schemes • Small local schemes rarely funded • Rail fiasco • Appraisal schemes maybe world class, but … • CC sLll very minor in the UK, no large agreement in sight
6
CriLcism of UK policy (3)
• Wolmer (2008): – New Labour did not deliver
• Darling “it is not my job to influence mode choice” • Many transport ministers ”pygmies”
– Reasons: • Short term thinking – but transport needs long-‐term perspecLve
• Appraisal methods do not favour light rail • Obsession with ensuring compeLLon • Deep mistrust of public sector • Terrified by large organisaLons • Reliance on a specific group of consultants
7
8
Local transport problems • “The usual ones”, similar to e.g. Japan
– Lack of PT, especially in rural areas – CongesLon – Air quality, noise, – Good road safety record, but could improve
• Possibly following aspects differ, at least in emphasis: – PercepLon of bus and rail – Obesity: “Almost 2/3 of adults are overweighed or obese” – GHG emissions – Accessibility, Social Exclusion – Crime – School travel
9
Packages of Measures
10
Emphasis of short vs long term
• Short term boost to growth and carbon reducLons through local iniLaLves – U.K. first country to have signed a legally binding Act to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050
– (besides env. benefits, various local economic benefits of transport are highlighted.)
• Large benefits achieved through technology changes – but these are to come in the long term
11
Emphasis of short vs long term (2)
12
Role of Car
• RecogniLon that the car has an important role that can not be replaced by other modes.
• However significant modal shif potenLal for journeys less than 10 miles, esp. 2-‐5 miles journeys
13
IniLaLves overview • Cycling:
– UK cycle ownership high -‐> get people to use it – Bikeability “Cycling Proficiency for the 21st Century” – Cycling route finder: Quietest, quickest, most recreaLonal – Cycling DemonstraLon towns – PromoLon of Electric Assisted bicycles in some cases
• PT: – UK ITSO (Integrated Transport Smart Card OrganisaLon): London Oyster Card
soon to be integrated – PLUSBUS: Buy unlimited PT Lcket together with rail Lcket for origin and
desLnaLon • Traffic:
– Review of traffic light policy – UTMC, example of nudge – De-‐clu\ering of traffic signs – Support building electric vehicle charging infrastructure
14
Keyword Nudges
• Recognised that artudes, habitual factors and societal structure influence decisions: Investments alone are not enough
• Enabling Choices is emphasised throughout • Theory of “Nudges” by Thaler and Sunstein (2009) ciLed – Libertarian Paternalism, Choice Architecture – To count as a Nudge an interven7on must be easy and should not forbid choice
15
Sust.Local TP White Paper 2011: Keyword Nudges
16
Keyword Decentralisa7on
• RecogniLon that influence of central government has been too strong • Cut back of regulaLons • Cut back of data requirements from local to central government • Cut back of assessment criteria • Accountability to local, not naLonal stakeholders • RecogniLon that definiLons of locality are difficult • Streamlining of applicaLon procedures • Encouraging iniLaLves such as CIVINET (EU initaLve CIVITAS)
17
Keyword Partnerships • Encouraging of funding applicaLons from partnerships between various organisaLons – Bus partnerships (voluntary, qualifying agreements, quality partnership schemes, quality contracts)
– Community bus services – ..will look favourably on those proposals of L.A. that demonstrate strong partnerships with VCSEs (Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise OrganisaLons)
– Example: Mid Cheshire Community Rail Partnership: • Redeveloping StaLon Area including internet café, community training room by community
• Important side effect: PosiLve effect on staLon area
18
Some comments • European countries are ahead of the U.K. in various
sustainable transport ini>a>ves – E.g. car clubs and car sharing
• Local transport white paper promising – but what will be implemented remains to be seen (naLonal and global events will play no small role)
– Short term thinking remains? – research of e.g. Social Exclusion Unit on the role of transport and findings of artudinal research well recognised
– appears like admirng past mistakes • Role of local ini>ators is crucial, some posiLve examples,
e.g. possibly largest shared space concept in the world in RBKC, London
19