Re: Do we need more transport or less?

On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, Paul Corfield <aoo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Is it an interesting point though?  The article read like another Wolmar
unfocused whinge about politicians not acting in a way and at a speed he
things is correct.

Giving hime the benefit of the doubt, I think he assumes his readers
are fully aware of the demand-side policies required:
* Mandatory intelligent speed adaptation and 60 mph limiters
* 20 mph max in all built up areas
* Internalisation of external costs: achievable through combinations
of fuel duty (= carbon tax), PAYG road user charging, PAYG insurance,
parking management (cost and supply)
* Setting the above charges to generate revenues to invest in less
carbon-intensive modes (the Swiss approach for dealing with HGVs and
paying for its rail tunnels)
* Access restrictions in town and city centres

He has no answer about what the politicians need to do to get it into
the heads of the electorate that transport is even an issue for them to
consider

Now that is an issue. We are all to blame for shrugging our shoulders
or, worse, being reactionary whenever road pricing is even mentioned.
So the two big political parties carry on believing that transport is
'too difficult'. But on the other hand we have been encouraged to buy
cars and use them for decades now, as the cost of motoring continues
to fall and that of non-regulated PT escalates. Every day we are
bombarded with car ads on billboards, on the radio, on TV, in print
media and even on bus stops, station posters and on TOC/ATOC banner
advertising. Combine this with the fact that the car is the ultimate
transport mode, offering privacy and an unlimited range of
destinations at an infinite frequency at low marginal cost... you have
a wicked problem.

It's the job of government to make the correct, not populist,
decisions for the longer-term. This appears to be incompatible with a
5-year electoral cycle, even when a new government with a landslide
majority arrives as it did in 1997, and an electorate that doesn't
appear to give a toss about the future of its children or those
unfortunate to be born in countries that will suffer famine and all
manner of 'natural' disasters within decades.

seriously never mind what an appropriate policy alternative
would be.  He simply says "the market" will do it by shoving up the
price of oil.  Well that's as may be but he fails to point out that all
that happened last year was that the private bus and train companies
used the short term increases as an excuse to shove up their prices
despite having hedged the price.

Yes, that is deeply frustrating and angers me too. But private sector
good, public bad remember, never mind any conflicting objectives.

None of them, barring Stagecoach buses,
took any real action to suggest to car owners that there might be a
tolerable alternative available to them.

There were/are pockets of good practice among Go-Ahead Group companies
- they seem to be targeting CO2 messages at wealthy/progressive towns/
markets such as Oxford and Brighton. It wouldn't really achieve
anything in Gateshead.

Eurostar is the only train
company I can think of that really pushes a "carbon" agenda and even
then I have to say I am skeptical about their "carbon neutral" stance.

I have looked into this - it's a sound scheme as long as you think
offsetting is acceptable. French nuclear power, plus the
contribuutions of Dungeness and offsetting make their operation 'CO2-
neutral'. I trust they will look into regen when the current fleet is
retired, plus shorter trains to better match supply and demand. What
else would you suggest?

There is no guarantee, at all, that any of our transport companies will
do anything other than shove prices up when a genuine shift in demand
away from private transport does actually happen.

Sadly true. One of the reasons I would prefer to see a 'Rail and bus
2050' capacity expansion programme, like the Swiss Bahn 2000, rather
than a fixation with high speed lines. Carrying on with a 2-car DMU
railway across swathes of the country isn't an option.

When the public are
caught in the trap of being unable to afford their cars and being unable
to use public transport because it's chronically under capacity the
politicians will be in a hell of a mess.

Well, the bus boys should be able to *mobilise* resources quickly. On
the railway I am sure the unregulated fares structure will stay in
place to stave off demand. I also suspect no government will be brave
enough to question cheap long-distance season tickets, despite the
regressive nature of such subsidy.

Remember that we need to decarbonise by 80% (on 1990 levels) by 2050;
fuel efficiency improvements, alternative fuels and electrification of
the private car fleet barely dent the emissions figures. By reducing
the unit cost of car travel, simply more units will be consumed.

As for the railways, we could be complacent if all we have to do is
fill empty seats. The picture is more complicated when new capacity is
required, with no evidence (yet) that government is prepared to apply
demand management to aviation and private car travel.

Mr Wolmar fails to point that demand for transport is a derived demand -
i.e. people travel somewhere to do something, they don't travel for its
own sake.  People will always wish to visit places, see friends. work
away from where they live etc.

Yes of course, but he's saying something should be done to end the car
being the default mobility option. Again giving him the benefit of the
doubt, I suspect his word limit means he couldn't describe the
packages of push and pull measures required to achieve this end state.

Until there is some alignment between
planning, economic development, transport, health, tourism and a whole
host of other strategies the politicians will not be able to dampen down
the demand for transport or make a shift towards modes which are
considerably more sustainable with much shorter journey lengths (e.g.
walking, cycling etc).  

Indeed. The government failed to respond satisfactorily to the RCEP's
2007 report on this very issue.
http://www.rcep.org.uk/reports/26-urban/26-urban.htm

"Sir John Lawton, Chair of the UK’s Commission says “Commissioners are
astonished that, on the eve of the new phase of urban regeneration and
expansion, we lack an over-arching urban environment policy to
coordinate the provision of housing, transport, energy and other vital
services. Tinkering with any one of these issues in isolation is bound
to fail. We can and must do better if we are to meet environmental
challenges and improve the health and wellbeing of our citizens.”"

The 1994 and 1997 reports described what should be done in terms of
transport in great detail. None of this is new.

We are about 40-50 years behind the times when compared to best practice
elsewhere in the world and we have no political will

Correct.

no political vision

We've had or have that (Castle, Prescott, Adonis) but the Treasury,
Cabinet and Marsham St civil servants usually make sure this is
stubbed out before motorists are offended or money has to be spent.

no electoral understanding

Correct: how do we go about cracking this car, er, nut?

and no money to make the changes that are needed.

I really hope that the revised BERR cost of carbon for project
appraisal helps to change Treasury thinking.
http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=17218
"The reforms see the central value of a tonne of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) roughly double. Previous guidance saw the value rise
from £27/tCO2e in 2008 to £34/tCO2e in 2020, £42/t in 2030 and £62/t
in 2050 (all in 2009 prices)."

But how do you put a price on the last gram that tips us over the
edge? Or on the deaths of hundreds of thouands of brown people in a
far away place?

It short we're doomed to decay and rot while other
economies, who have invested in sensible policies and achieved
politician consensus, will rise above us in the league of successful
countries and economies.

You don't think we can achieve political consensus? Thankfully not all
Tories are like our resident loon Mr Tracy. What if Zac Goldsmith
ascends through the ranks quickly?

As for the public, what if climate change denial becomes as acceptable
as holocaust denial? What if the BBC stops giving excuses and finally
commits to a prime time climate change season, preferably early next
year before 60% of us stir ourselves to go and vote. Perhaps the next
generation offers some hope? It'll be a long slog, but I'm not giving
up yet.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
    ... urban areas to satisfy demand. ... Public transport favours a dense central core with radial ... The classic example of a city that grew up with the motor car is Los ... housing, rather than travel. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
    ... the car users out of their cars occasionally. ... for as a *cost* in the CBA for a public transport scheme. ... Do you mean that "Government is in hock to the road and air transport ... and I believe that politicians would really like to see ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
    ... the car users out of their cars occasionally. ... Not in the eyes of the DfT. ... for as a *cost* in the CBA for a public transport scheme. ... and I believe that politicians would really like to see ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Railway Vision for the 21st Century
    ... the Swiss public transport system. ... Remember the car has zero waiting ... You need either consensus politics or individuals with balls, ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Drilling for common sense in Congress
    ... Drilling for common sense in Congress ... With gas over $4 a gallon and politicians trying to blame each other ... worldwide demand for oil. ... trash out of their car windows. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
Loading