Transport: Terms of Reference

The transport of people, goods and services is a key component of economic growth and social well-being. Demand for transport has so far risen in line with economic growth, as people increase the mileage they travel by air, road or rail in pursuit of business or leisure, and the goods they buy are transported over ever longer distances.

However, growth in motorised transport is associated with a number of environmental and social problems, ranging from climate change and the loss of greenbelt land to health problems such as asthma and obesity. The current pricing of transport fails to capture these so-called external costs, keeping the price of motoring and aviation artificially cheap.

The gap between the real cost of using a car and using public transport continues to widen – by over 12% in only the last 8 years. QoL Transport will be exploring a range of policies to close this gap.

Transport growth can entail serious macroeconomic costs too. Congestion is estimated to cost the UK economy £15 billion a year, and anyone who is familiar with the school run or rush-hour commuting will testify that heavy traffic volumes threaten the very features that make car use so appealing – namely reliability, comfort, safety and convenience.

These appealing features are not the exclusive attributes of any single transport mode. In certain circumstances, buses, trains, bicycles or simply two feet offer the same or enhanced mobility benefits as a car. At the moment, however, these choices are constrained by patchy or unreliable public transport infrastructure, a lack of recognition of the importance of walking and cycling for short journeys and by poor land-use planning that fails to provide for sustainable, integrated transport.

Transport is a unique proposition in terms of social policy in that it has no rationale other than to facilitate other social and economic objectives. The days of Mr Toad enjoying the open road for its own sake are gone – now we travel in order to arrive.

Transport provides a link between five components of modern day living; work, home, retail, leisure and community or family. If these needs can be integrated without the need for personal motorised transport all the indications are that people will be quite happy to dispense with their cars entirely. London, for example, has the highest rate of discretionary non-car ownership in the UK – that is, non-ownership through choice rather than financial hardship – and for a number of predictable reasons. Thus, the relationship between land use planning and the transport demand those plans generate is absolutely umbilical, and QoL Transport will be liaising with other QoL policy groups – for example QoL Built Environment – to identify synergies in policy goals from the outset.

QoL Transport seeks to develop policies for moderating growth in road transport and aviation on the one hand, and providing a range of positive alternatives on the other. The latter should include improved public transport, better cycling and walking infrastructure, mixed-use development, work or school travel plans and incentives to use less polluting transport modes. The accent should be on offering attractive alternatives to the use of the car rather than treating car use as if it were morally wrong and thus to be frustrated at every turn.

We will seek to reduce the environmental impacts of driving itselfwith policies to encourage the sale of cleaner cars. Currently, the average new car sold in the UK emits 169 grammes of carbon dioxide every kilometre, 9g more than the European average and 65g more than the Toyota Prius, one of the cleanest cars on the market today.

The Conservative party has set a goal of reducing new car emissions to an average 100g per km by 2022, and for all cars on Britain’s roads to meet this standard by 2030. There are several ways to cut vehicle emissions, for example through cleaner engines such as hybrids or advanced diesel, the use of biofuels, and behaviour change including the choice of smaller cars and so-called ‘eco-driving’ techniques.

These measures should all be additional. QoL Transport will investigate ways of encouraging consumers to choose a ‘green’ vehicle and giving manufacturers incentives to bring clean technologies to market. Policy options include fiscal measures such as differential rates of vehicle excise duty, government procurement, and preferential access or pricing for parking spaces and/or high vehicle occupancy lanes. 

Through this holistic approach, we hope to arrive at a policy framework whereby businesses and the general public are offered a genuine choice of transport modes within an accurate pricing system. In this way, travellers can continue to enjoy the full benefits of mobility, while reducing the external costs of transport – goals that are entirely consistent with a better quality of life.

QoL Transport is seeking to address a number of specific questions under the following four working groups.

Working Group 1: The future of aviation

What is the underlying demand for additional airport or runway capacity in the longterm, if all environmental, social and economic costs and benefits are fully factored in?

What is the potential for reducing emissions per passenger kilometre via the development of more energy-efficient aircraft technologies and fuels?

If we accept that the government’s predicted increase in air travel capacity will entail unacceptable environmental costs, what measures should the UK take to constrain growth in demand a) unilaterally?; and b) at a multilateral level?

What would be the effects upon the UK’s economic growth and competitiveness if air transport capacity was expanded at a lesser rate than anticipated by the government’s current strategy, or not at all?

What is the potential for displacing short-haul or interconnecting flights with alternative, lower carbon modes of travel, such as high speed rail, and how do we realise this potential?

Is the existing and projected geographic spread of airport capacity economically efficient or desirable?

What measures should be adopted to protect local communities from the negative effects of airport expansion?

Working Group 2: The relationship between transport policy and land use planning

What should the UK’s road-building policy be? In particular, should we not seek to manage demand for travel as an alternative to building new roads? Are all road improvements equally desirable? Is there a case for the rural town by-pass or grade separated junction improvements? What is the role of technology in optimising road capacity or regulating demand?

Are current decision-making and planning procedures currently biased towards new road capacity as opposed to other transport solutions?

What minimum standards of sustainable transport planning should be adopted for major new housing or business developments?

How can we encourage mixed-use development through the planning system, and what potential does mixed-use development have to reduce transport emissions?

How can we make urban streets safer and more attractive?

Working Group 3: A ‘proper’ definition of sustainable integrated transport policy

What should be the role of the private sector in building and maintaining transport infrastructure and services, for a) rail and b) buses?

Should the UK consider building a high-speed rail system?

What types of private car journeys have greatest potential for replacement by alternative modes, which modes are most appropriate and how should modal shift be incentivised?

How can we improve the desirability of alternatives to the private car?

What is the potential for transferring road and air freight to water and rail transport?

Working Group 4: The economics of transport and the use of fiscal levers to encourage/discourage behaviours

What level of charges should be set for road transport, and how should these charges be collected?

What is the role of road-user and congestion charging in managing transport demand?

How should we incentivise the purchase and development of low carbon vehicles and fuels?

How should we incentivise employers to adopt ‘soft’ measures such as travel plans, flexible working hours and patterns?

How can the carriage of freight be optimised so as to eliminate unnecessary transport?

Should HGV bans be considered for certain times and/or routes? What is the potential for internet-driven home delivery?