SC(3) CR-T11

Sustainability Committee

Inquiry into Carbon Reduction in Wales: Carbon Reduction by Transport

Response from the South East Wales Transport Alliance (Sewta)

Background

A. The South East Wales Transport Alliance (Sewta) is a consortium of 10 local authorities; the Councils of Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Caerphilly, Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil, Monmouthshire, Newport, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Torfaen and the Vale of Glamorgan.  We work with industry partners and the Welsh Assembly Government to improve regional transport in south-east Wales.  Sewta represents the regional transport interest of 1.4m people and more than 100,000 businesses.  We are the largest of the four transport consortia in Wales and are pleased to present evidence on the Committee’s interest in carbon reduction.  We note the submission made by to the Committee by Cardiff CC and endorse that response.

B. Sewta will produce its Regional Transport Plan (RTP) early in 2009 but we published our Outline RTP in January 2007 and will produce a draft of the plan in 2008.  We have already carried out an initial environmental assessment of the Plan.  The Direction established in our Outline RTP was a balanced one to meet economic, social and environmental objectives.  It paid great attention to the issue of carbon reduction and climate change; our response to the Committee’s questions draws heavily on that work.

C. One of the desired outcomes the Assembly has set for the Wales Transport Strategy is "to reduce the contribution of transport to greenhouse gas emissions”.  On this, our Outline RTP said "temperatures are expected to increase by between and 1° and 3° by 2050.  In an extreme scenario, temperatures in the lifetime of our children (2080) could reach Mediterranean levels.  That would be accompanied by substantial rises in sea levels leaving large parts of south east Wales under water.  There is a possibility (unquantified as yet) of the tundra melting and destroying all life on earth.  These problems transcend those related to other environmental issues, apart perhaps from bio-diversity.  Technology will provide a partial solution but it cannot be relied on to an extent that action on climate change might not be needed.  Self-interest must drive our RTP as well.  The contribution that south-east Wales transport makes to world carbon emissions is less than 0.01%.  We can make no difference.  Why should we bother?  The question has four answers.  First, there is the moral obligation.  If a relatively rich country like Wales takes no action why should India or China, where future problems really lie?(1)  Second, we are unable to deal with the consequences of ever increasing levels of traffic, irrespective of whether that causes climate change.  We cannot build our way out of the congestion problem.  Third, oil will become much more expensive in the future and any economy based on its cheap and plentiful supply is unlikely to be viable.  Fourth, policies to encourage traffic growth do nothing to help the most socially disadvantaged; building roads does not help poor people lead better lives.  We must therefore adopt an RTP that provides different and more sustainable transport alternatives and reduces the need to travel.  Regeneration of town centres, brownfield sites and local communities reduces the travel associated with development of greenfield areas”.

D. Further work on our Plan and our response to this consultation reflects these sentiments.

E. Our contribution to this vital debate may seem critical of the Welsh Assembly Government.  That is not our intention.  The Assembly is a political body, as are our Councils.  All must be mindful of their electorates.  Our response presumes that the Sustainability Committee’s approach is first to investigate and understand the nature of the problem, then to see what can be done about it, and finally to recommend actions that are, in reality, deliverable.  Our response addresses all three points, not just the last.

F. The Committee will look at a number of topic areas.  Sewta has primary responsibility for major transport capital works of regional significance.  It also seeks to influence the way some revenue functions are delivered.  Finally land use and the way public bodies operate their services influence the need and demand for travel, and consequently the level of carbon emissions from transport.  These are all matters that interest us and we comment on them within our response.

General questions.

 Please only reply to these questions if your organisation has not already responded to previous consultations for the carbon reduction inquiry.

Q1 Is the proposed 3 per cent annual reduction target by 2011 'in areas of devolved competence’ sufficient to enable Wales to make its full contribution to meeting UK-wide targets?  If not, what targets should be put in place?  

1.1 HMG has set a carbon reduction target of a 60% reduction by 2050.  An annual reduction of 3% (compound) over the 40 years from 2011 to 2050 would reduce emissions by more than 70%.  (An annual reduction of 2¼% in fact meets the target.)  In simplistic terms, the answer to Question 1 has to be 'yes’.  It is however complicated by three factors.

1.2 First there is the issue of the Assembly’s devolved competence.  This tends to be stated in terms of areas of service delivery such as overall responsibility for secondary school education, planning and the other bodies.  The Assembly also has little control over fiscal matters.  It provision of local bus services.  Even then, delivery is often through other bodies.  The Assembly also has little control over fiscal matters It cannot set taxes on petrol, even though they influence so much the demand for travel.  Whitehall statutes also tie it on many planning laws.  The definition of devolved competence is not outcome oriented.  That places the Assembly in a difficult position as regards its ability to deliver its target.

1.3 The second factor is how the target is broken down into component areas of policy.  This is in fact Q9 (If specific carbon dioxide emissions targets are to be set for Wales, should those targets be subdivided into shares by sector?  If so, what share of the total should reductions by the transport sector comprise?) but it has to be answered to a degree at this stage if further comments on transport are to have any significance.  Every sector of the economy can contribute something to a reduction in carbon emissions, although it will be easier to achieve in some areas than in others.  Reduction programmes will also move at different rates - all the achievable results in one area might be achieved quickly with no further reductions possible whereas another area might offer few reductions early on but much more later.  At this stage, we suggest that all areas of activity must aim to make reductions of 3% from 2011, even if that is extremely difficult.  We respond on these issues in more detail under Q9.

1.4 Third it is most unlikely to be achievable, at least until the situation has deteriorated sufficiently for government, industry and the general public to realise the need to take urgent action.  To prevent the inexorable growth in road traffic, the Government must act now before it is too late.  Sewta however applauds the target on the grounds that the issue is so important that a lower target ignores the seriousness of the situation.  Until a more accurate allocation by sector is available we support 3% pa across the board.

Q2 Should the emission reduction target be based on Welsh consumption, or production, or both (ie should it take into consideration the carbon dioxide generated in Wales (production), or the carbon dioxide emissions that Wales' residents are responsible for, regardless of their source (consumption))?  

2.1 This is a fine point, at least as regards transport.  Transport consumption and production only differ when emissions related to Welsh activity take place outside Wales.  The primary test should be whether we in Wales influence the activity that consumes.  Our view tends towards production targets, although consumption over Welsh generated consumption outside Wales is something we can exhort on, even if action is not practical.  Production targets may also be easier to measure.

Questions specific to transport emissions of carbon dioxide:

Q3 What particular challenges does Wales face in reducing carbon dioxide emissions from transport, and how can these challenges be overcome?

3.1 Travel taxes are proving to be one of the most emotive of all taxes.  As a nation, we really are wedded to our cars and to our holidays in the sun.  Any Government that seeks to touch those privileges is playing with fire.  That is why Sewta has placed so much emphasis in its RTP on spending money to counter that view.

3.2 There is a strong link between traffic growth and economic growth.  The British economic model is built on that relationship.  Most areas of the economy that use carbon have at least an economic interest in driving down carbon consumption, as it represents a cost to be avoided if possible.  Transport is different; increased consumption equates to increased productivity.  The disparity arises from the fact that travel is a derived demand, whereas most other carbon consuming activities are not.  It is possible to construct economic models that produce economic growth without requiring the transport link but that is not the basis of current economic planning.  A tax system that taxes consumption rather than labour, for instance, would fit the bill but a change in that direction is not in the Assembly’s gift; it lies with the Chancellor.

3.3 The changes needed to reduce carbon consumption in the transport sector will take time to have an effect.  There are few quick wins with transport.

3.4 We congratulate the Assembly for promoting its cross-cutting agenda but much more needs to be done on the ground.  That requires organisations to look outside their direct responsibilities and see a wider field of view.  That is easy to say but the day job always seems to come first.  More pressing needs too often squeeze out wider interests.  Endemic institutional introspection is the enemy of change.

3.5 Spiritually, Wales might be one nation joined seamlessly in all directions.  Geographically, it is several large communities that run more east to west.  Scotland is larger but is much more focused on the Central Valley of Scotland; England is so much larger that it can handle many foci of activity.  Wales is unique in Great Britain in its geography being so different from its desire for social cohesion.  Consequently the concept of 'Welsh connectivity’ is especially difficult to deliver bearing in mind the carbon footprint of the resulting policies.

3.6 Sewta faces a more specific problem.  It is becoming difficult to retain and attract employment to the upper valley areas.  Factory owners increasingly seek planning approval for housing on their sites.  That leads to more long distance commuting.  Such a process inevitably leads to greater carbon emissions.  This is a major land use planning issue.  It identifies the need to find planning solutions to transport problems.

3.7 Finally there is the health issue.  There are pockets of Wales where obesity is an increasingly challenging problem.  Healthier travel choices have potentially a bigger impact there than elsewhere in the UK but are conversely more difficult to introduce.  That makes joined up thinking between health service provision and other service providers doubly important.

Q4 Do the current transport policies of the Welsh Assembly Government give sufficient emphasis to carbon reduction?  

4.1 Yes and No.  Welsh Assembly Government policies aim in the right direction but lack the means of delivery.  The Wales Transport Strategy for instance is full of well-meaning statements to reduce carbon emissions but is very short on detail to turn that into reality.  Also our attempts to debate changes to Planning Policy Wales to reflect the increased importance of carbon reduction have, to date at least, fallen on deaf ears.  In the future much higher levels of funding will be needed if we are to provide the public with a realistic alternative for even some of their journeys.  

4.2 The phrase "Integrated transport” implies higher levels of revenue spending relative to capital.  The Assembly’s response to date to that requirement has been supportive but little more.

4.3 Sewta’s RTP tries to address these shortcomings.  Our Outline RTP contains ideas about what needs to be done.  We wish to discuss the details of our proposals with others to turn ideas into action.  We refer in more detail to these ideas in our response to further questions below.

Q5 To what extent has the Welsh Assembly Government been successful in utilising the powers available to it in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport?

5.1 The Welsh Assembly Government has been more active than HMG has in England.  To that extent it has been successful.  The impact of these efforts has however been minimal.  Traffic continues to grow, the need for the new M4 is as great as ever and the success of Cardiff Airport continues to be measured by the number of passengers through its doors.  There is little if any evidence of a reduction in carbon emissions from transport in Wales as a result of Assembly policy.

5.2 The situation is not as black as this suggests.  The steps put in place so far (such as free travel concessions, improved rail services, better bus shelters, investments in cycling) are all necessary and good sustainable policies.  That is not to offer unqualified praise for our current actions.  The problem is that they are not sufficient and most are not backed up with enough investment.  The policies lack funds and programmes.  A real, rather than apparent change in direction is necessary.  Much more needs to be done and some of it will be unpopular.

Q6 Could alternative targeting of Welsh Assembly Government financial resources lead to greater reductions in transport emissions than is currently being achieved?  If so, where could additional resources lead to greatest impact?  (Please provide details to support your evidence).  

6.1 This, and the points raised under Q8, define the area of greatest beneficial change.  We consider the role of road user charging and developers contributions under Q8, although both potentially expand the size of the purse available for transport spending.  We consider under this question how road user charging and planning obligation income might be used more effectively.

6.2 There is no specific requirement to reduce carbon emissions as a result of the direction of financial resources, although the Assembly’s investment appraisal technique (WelTAG) lists carbon reduction as one desirable outcome of investment.  If investment is to reduce carbon emissions, then the topic has to be moved up the Assembly’s list of priorities.  At the moment it is stalled on the starting grid.

6.3 We need a quantified understanding of the impact of transport investment on carbon emissions.  The transport debate in Wales is currently poorly informed by facts at all levels.  That reflects the low level of resources put into plan formulation at all levels.  The WSP for instance broadly defines the location of more than 100,000 new households.  That implies an investment of between £10bn and £20bn in housing and public infrastructure.  And yet the amount of detailed analysis supporting those decisions is minimal.

6.4 As regards transport, we know that cycling and walking provision, provided it is well used, reduces carbon emissions.  The effect of investment in motorised modes of travel is less well understood.  There are circumstances where a car has lower emissions than a bus serving the same group of people.  The same can be true of aeroplanes.  The conventional wisdom is not always an accurate guide on carbon impacts.

6.5 Sewta’s investment plans take account of these factors.  We have for instance identified a package of rail improvements that concentrates on existing rail corridors.  The Sewta region has about 48% of Wales’ population but 70% of its rail traffic.  The Sewta rail investment programme therefore will have the most concentrated use of all the rail packages currently proposed in Wales.  It also consequently has the biggest carbon reduction impact.  The same principle applies to the emerging Sewta bus investment programme.

6.6 Our proposals for investment in the highway system also have carbon reduction in mind.  Complementary to our public transport proposals, we wish to improve the efficiency with which the road system operates.  There is huge economic disutility (wasted money) associated with traffic congestion.  Some of the cost is wasted fuel.  We see road user charging therefore having substantial environmental as well as economic benefits.  Road user charging is also a source of funds, which we wish to see returned to users of the transport system in four ways, all of which help reduce carbon emissions.

• Capital investment in public transport.
• Capital investment in the highway system.
• Improved highway maintenance.
• Increased support of public transport services.
• Support for travel plans and soft measures.

6.7 A large part of our highway development strategy aims at making better use of what we have.  This potentially has a big impact on carbon emissions.  Time spent queuing in traffic is energy wasted and unnecessary carbon emitted.  We intend to move much of our investment in highways away from large schemes which encourage traffic to move faster, to smaller schemes aimed at making traffic move more smoothly.  The current rules for transport grant favour large schemes over small.  We are however aware that the Welsh Assembly Government and the WLGA are looking at the rules on this to allow spending on a programme of smaller schemes offering higher aggregate value for money.  We will create that programme within the context set by council regeneration strategies and the Spatial Plan proposals for a networked city region.

6.8 We need to significantly increase funding to promote and publicise public transport (even down to giving car users a week’s free travel on public transport).  More money should also be spent on travel planning and car sharing.  This work is not capital spending and the increase can only come from revenue budgets.  The carbon reduction and integrated transport agendas require that more is spent on the revenue account.  Governments (both UK and Wales) have never worked out how to achieve that change.  They must if progress is to be made.

6.9 The University College London with Halcrow produced a report in 2005.  ("Looking over the Horizon, Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy: Department for Transport - Horizons Research Programme”).  This suggested ways to reduce carbon use in the transport sector.  In aggregate their proposed measures would have a substantial effect.  We attach, as appendix A to this report, an extract from our Outline Regional Transport Plan.  This summarises the UCL report and estimates the changes in travel demand in south east Wales needed to substantially reduce transport carbon emissions.

6.10 In summary, appropriate and higher investment in transport in south-east Wales is the most effective way of reducing transport carbon emissions.  Such investment needs to be planned within the context set by the Wales Spatial Plan and by transport policies aimed at sustainable development.

Q7 What examples from other administrations (devolved, UK, and overseas), where other means have been used to achieve reductions in transport carbon dioxide emissions, could be adopted in Wales under current powers?

7.1 In Holland, there is a strong presumption that a motorist who injures a cyclist is guilty of an offence.  In this country, there is a presumption of innocence.  While respecting the basis of the latter position, Dutch practice offers much more protection to cyclists.  The Assembly should do what it can to increase protection for cyclists, using continental practice where appropriate.

7.2 We must look again at the detail of many of our highway design standards.  Too often they have the interests of the motorist as the primary consideration and the needs of other road users are accommodated within that requirement.  That thinking has to change if we are to make other modes of transport - walking, bus and cycling - more attractive.

7.3 We should also make more use of existing powers to limit traffic in town centres.  The powers may be there, but we do not use them in the way other countries do.

7.4 We also support the potential change to 20mph being the norm in defined residential areas, rather than 30mph.  Where this has happened in Hull, there has been a substantial reduction in traffic casualties and a noticeable increase in cycling.

7.5 In many other countries, central and local government is more willing to lead by example than we are in Britain.  The public sector for instance should take steps that will deliver in a practical way its theoretical commitment to reduce its own travel by 3% pa (say).  This a major opportunity in Wales where public sector employment is in a majority.  There is also still too much opportunistic land use planning in Wales.  We believe that best European practice is more holistic than our practice in Wales.

Q8 In the context of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which further means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from transport could only be achieved with the introduction of further legislative competence for the National Assembly for Wales?

8.1 GoWA 2006 establishes the Assembly Executive as a body in its own right, rather than just an executive arm of the Assembly with delegated powers, which it was previously.  The Act also increases the Assembly’s legislative powers to make subordinate legislation (that is legislative change without the need for legislative amendment) and, through an Order in Council, to allow Parliament to confer enhanced legislative powers on the Assembly in relation to specified subject matters within devolved fields.   The second power is greater than the first but requires parliamentary intervention.  Our comments on this matter do not seek to identify which mechanism is needed to promote a specific change.  We do not address any change related to the possible power conferred by the third option - that is a referendum - because of the problems and time needed to progress it.

8.2 We consider here all changes that are organisational rather than requiring infrastructure investment.

8.3 The biggest single change the Assembly needs to consider is to introduce a national road user charging scheme.  This would certainly require legislation of some kind.  There is some doubt about how unpopular such a scheme would be.  The January web poll organised by HMG suggested that road user charging was hugely unpopular.  More scientific polls suggest that, provided the money raised is spent on public transport, and ahead of the introduction of the charge so that service levels improve substantially, a small majority is in favour.  The design of a national system requires considerable planning.  It also needs to address problems such as the potential generation of rural traffic in areas where traffic is light and the need to fund investment before the charge is introduced.  Sewta has already recognised that a regional road user charging scheme, to be introduced in about 2018, is a necessary part of its medium term plans.  Such a scheme would apply to almost half of Wales’ population and would therefore be partly national in character anyway.

8.4 We have referred previously to the need to revise Planning Policy Wales.  The need is greater than just a reissue of ministerial advice on planning.  One of the most effective ways of reducing carbon emissions is to properly integrate land use and transport.  That integration would recognise the impact of changes in one on the other.  A good example is the impact that additional housing development has on traffic congestion.  Estimates of the congestion cost exceed £100,000 per housing unit under the most extreme conditions.  Much of this additional housing is on land that requires planning permission; that land has greatly increased value once it has planning approval for housing development.  It seems entirely reasonable that the landowner gives up a proportion of the increased land value to mitigate the problems his development imposes on the public at large.  Such a scheme benefits both parties.  It clearly helps deliver better public infrastructure but it also brings into use land which might otherwise remain undeveloped.  Implementing a system around that release of added land value would be easier if the Assembly were to offer guidance on such matters through revised planning guidance.  It would however be much better if such a scheme was to have a legislative basis.  Planning legislation along these lines will also strengthen the hand of planning authorities and redress the balance between them and the handful of very powerful companies who exert undue influence over the planning system.

8.5 The Draft Local Transport Bill proposes changes to the framework for bus operations set by the Transport Act 1985.  We have welcomed those changes.  Our initial analysis suggest that the Bill addresses the worst excesses on the 1985 Act and allows the effective operation of quality bus partnerships and other improvements to the bus system.  Further legislative change will be necessary should that hope be confounded.

8.6 Nearly all carbon consumption on transport is by users of the system rather than the system providers.  Consequently changes in their behaviour and the demand for transport they create have potentially a bigger impact on carbon emissions than action by those who provide the transport system.  We have previously looked at how the public at large can be influenced.  Providers of public services, such as schools and the National Health Service, also have a huge impact on the demand for travel and consequently on carbon emissions.  Sewta has long promoted the need for these public bodies to consider these wider consequences of their actions.  This is not probably a matter that must require new legislation but it would be stronger if it did.  There should be an increased statutory requirement for all public bodies to quantify, consider and address the carbon consumption that arises from the travel their services generate.

8.7 Our final suggestions are highly technical.  WelTAG (Welsh Transport Appraisal Guidance) is the Assembly’s analysis tool for transport projects it funds.  We support the process in principle but it has two worrying characteristics both of which hint at a failure by the Assembly to seriously address the carbon reduction agenda.  The first is a requirement for considerable detail about the traffic benefits of investment proposals.  We suggest much more relative attention should be paid to other equally important issues, such as the environment and addressing social exclusion.  More worrying is the support WelTAG offers to evaluate the benefits of the traffic generated by road schemes.  To quantify this factor and to include it in the cost/benefit calculation flies directly in the face of any attempt to reduce carbon emissions.  The practice also perpetuates the link between economic and traffic growth that we have previously suggested must be broken.

9 If specific carbon dioxide emissions targets are to be set for Wales, should those targets be subdivided into shares by sector?  If so, what share of the total should reductions by the transport sector comprise?  

9.1 We accept that transport should accept its proportionate burden of the need to reduce carbon emissions.  That acceptance however poses the problems raised in response to Q1 and Q3, particularly the difficulty of reducing transport emissions in the short term whilst continuing to strive for the economic growth which traditionally fuels traffic and emissions growth.  We also have some additional caveats.

• Ultimately, targets must be set for individual sectors and for parts of those sectors.  For instance, it will be easier (or more accurately less difficult) to cut carbon emissions in south-east Wales, where alternative provision for many journeys is practical, than in mid Wales where alternative provision is more difficult.
• Serious efforts to make reductions must be required of all sectors according to the targets.  Unless everyone tries, the initial enthusiasm in any areas that make an effort will quickly dissipate.
• Public opinion must influence any differential targets.  The differences must be largely a consequence of informed public choice.  We must however avoid hitting only the apparently easy options.  That will not be enough.  The Assembly’s debate on carbon reduction is an important part of balancing those democratic requirements with the need to make hard choices.

Appendix A - Extract from "Looking over the horizon”.  

A DfT funded report prepared by UCL and Halcrow.(2)

Introduction

This report looked at alternative ways of reducing carbon emissions from transport in line with government targets.  The target was a 60% reduction by 2030.  The report considered two 'images’.  One assumed the necessary reduction could be achievable by technological change only.  The report concluded this could not be made to work.  The second 'image’ adopted a series of changes - technology, behavioural, in mode of travel and consequent to different planning policies.  These changes are set out below.  Each is described together with a range of possible carbon changes.  Table B1 summarises the effect of each action.  In some cases the upper (high) range of carbon change is used, sometimes the low end of the range of possible change is used.  The report suggests a 60% reduction is possible.

Policy actions

PP1 Low Emission Vehicles: The take up of low emission vehicles, based largely on hybrid technology is very important. Full introduction of the 90 g/km car in the total fleet by 2030 equires massive investment by car manufacturers. The current best generations of vehicles have emissions levels of around 100 g/km (the Toyota Prius emits 104 g/km). Relying on this option may be high risk, and further work is required to establish the costs and feasibility of converting the whole of the UK car fleet to hybrids by 2030. There is a major role here for the motor industry. The full potential of hybrids for the freight and public transport sectors also needs further investigation.

Carbon reduction potential = 18.3 MtC(3) - 9.1 MtC.

PP2 Alternative Fuels: Additional benefits can be obtained if alternative fuels are used in conjunction with petrol and diesel hybrids. There are many possible alternative fuels on the market - including compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, methanol, ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen and electricity. Many alternative fuels can be used on their own, others can be blended with existing fuels and used in vehicles without any major modifications to the engines. The International Energy Agency suggests that by 2030, some 20-40% of all fuels in transport could come from alternative sources. Much further work is however required to investigate the potential of alternative fuels - this should include the necessary infrastructure required to make them work effectively.

Carbon reduction potential = 9.1 MtC - 1.8 MtC.

PP3 Pricing Regimes: Road pricing can also make a substantial difference, whether it is operated nationally or just within cities and on the motorways. In combination with other policies, road pricing on an environmental basis (i.e. the charging relates to the carbon emissions profile of the vehicle and the. number of passengers), can give clear signals to consumers to switch to more efficient cars or to other modes of transport

Carbon reduction potential = 2.3 MtC - 1.1 MtC.

PP4 Liveable Cities: This package focuses on using urban form to support sustainable transport, with higher density development clustered around an upgraded public transport system, and urban areas masterplanned to vastly improve their urban design quality and attractiveness for living and working. There is complementary heavy investment in walking and cycling facilities and public transport. Extensive application of this package has a major impact, but largely over the medium term, as decisions on the location of new housing and other development take place gradually over time. These decisions have a substantial effect on both distances travelled and modes used.

Carbon reduction potential = 2.4 MtC - 0.5 MtC.

PP5 Information and Communications Technology (ICT): This option explores the potential for carbon reduction, but the levels seem limited, and there may be rebound effects as ICT encourages more, not less travel. The measures are targeted at personal and freight travel, and include advanced route and parking guidance, car sharing, public transport information systems, freight logistics, local traffic regulation and teleactivities.

Carbon reduction potential = 1.2 MtC - 0.3 MtC.

PP6 Soft Measures: Including workplace and school travel plans, future changes in car ownership (including leasing and car clubs), car sharing, travel awareness and personalised travel planning programmes. These are important supporting measures to other packages, but they also have an important impact on carbon emissions in their own right.

Carbon reduction potential = 2.4 MtC - 0.9 MtC.

PP7 Ecological Driving: Innovative forms of public transport, including demand responsive modes, will form part of the future transport package (Ultra light rail module).  This has substantial immediate benefits, particularly if combined with lower national speed limits. Slower speeds provide extensive savings, with potential for some 15-20% reduction in carbon emissions if a maximum speed limit of 80 km/hr is introduced on motorways and trunk roads, with lower speeds on other roads. Although the fuel use and speed value curves for new cars are flatter than those for older cars, there are considerable fuel savings from lower speeds. These speed limits need to be combined with awareness programmes and better driving techniques to reduce fuel use.

Carbon reduction potential = 4.6 MtC - 2.5 MtC.

PP8 Long Distance Travel Substitution: There is some limited potential for long distance travel substitution of rail for air, and coach for rail, but the savings here are not substantial. Carbon reduction potential = 0.7 MtC - 0.5 MtC.

PP9 Freight Transport: Freight transport is covered in several of the packages, but subsidiarity (local production and knowledge transfer) and dematerialisation (miniaturisation, advanced logistics and distribution networks, load matching and material consumption) can all lead to savings, some substantial.

Carbon reduction potential = 2.5 MtC - 0.7 MtC.

Two more policy packages are also very relevant - carbon rationing (PP10) and increased oil prices (PP11). Under a carbon rationing package, individuals are given a yearly CO2 budget, on an equitable basis - where heavy CO2 users can buy rations from less intensive users. The overall usage on a national and regional scale is reduced over time to meet carbon reduction targets. Both carbon rationing and increased oil prices are seen as supporting or enabling packages - ensuring the take up of the earlier measures and policy packages. Much more research is required on the likely implementation pathways on both of these supporting packages. There are potential difficulties in implementation with both.

Commentary

The outline plan accords with these actions.  There is a danger of some double counting in table B1.  Increasing car occupancy is one of the aims of the soft measures (both in PP6).  We would hope that increased use of ICT and increases in car occupancy could yield bigger savings that those put directly against them.

The most difficult target to meet in table B1 is that related to the reduction in the average distance per person by car.  The reduction is not per car driver but for everyone.  It implies a much bigger reduction in car use, once additional car users are taken into account.  Car ownership (4) is forecast to grow 29% between 2001 and 2031.  Most of these will be second cars which are used less than 'first’ cars in a household, but the reduction in miles per car required still presents a formidable challenge.

Allowing for the 10% increase in population:

• 38% of the reduction comes from changes in vehicle and fuel technology,
• 16% from driving differently
• 38% from modal transfer and reduction in car use;
• and 8% from the consequence of the redesign of urban areas.

54% of the reduction will accrue from technology or from driving more carefully but changes in the amount of travel still have to account for about 46% of the reduction.  To reduce carbon emissions by 60%, means emissions from travellers have to drop 28% and that is with an increase in car ownership that is itself substantial and making matters worse.  

Table 8.2 of the main plan uses the simple model set out in table B.2.  Table 8.2 sets out a number of scenarios using the model.  Table B.2 is for scenario 1 only.  That is for a car ownership increase of 13%, an increase in car occupancy of 20% and reductions in average trip length and trips per car of 18%.  That leads to a reduction in traffic of 34%.

References
1) The USA is the largest polluter by far.  Pressure must also be applied to their Government
(2) source : Bartlett School of Planning, University College London and Halcrow Group.  January 2006.
(3) MTC or MTCE : millions of tonnes coal equivalent
(4) source: National Road Traffic Forecast.  All figures are for all UK

Table B1 - Smart Social Policy Core Package

Table B.2 Traffic reduction related to changes in certain variables