Written evidence submitted by Sustrans (EVP0063)
About Sustrans
Sustrans is the charity making it easier for people to walk and cycle. We connect people and places, create liveable neighbourhoods, transform the school run and deliver a happier, healthier commute.
We are engineers and educators, experts and advocates who work in partnership, bringing people together to find the right solutions. We make the case for walking and cycling by using robust evidence and showing what can be done. We are grounded in communities and believe that grassroots support combined with political leadership drives real change, fast.
We are pleased to respond to the Transport Committee’s inquiry on zero emission vehicles and road pricing.
Response summary
Accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles
The actions required by Government and private operators to encourage greater uptake of electric vehicles and infrastructure required to support them
The Government’s ambition to phase out the sale of new diesel heavy goods vehicles, including the scope to use hydrogen as an alternative fuel
The case for introducing some form of road pricing and the economic, fiscal, environmental and social impacts of doing so
The lessons to be learned from other countries who are seeking to decarbonise road transport and/or utilise forms of road pricing
Which particular road pricing or pay-as-you-drive schemes would be most appropriate for the UK context and the practicalities of implementing such schemes?
The level of public support for road pricing and how the views of the public need to be considered in the development of any road pricing scheme
1a. The feasibility, opportunities, and challenges presented by the acceleration of the ban of the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2030.
Sustrans welcomes the acceleration of the ban of the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2030.
We urge the Government to capitalise on this opportunity to decarbonise transport by ensuring that the ban takes place alongside the introduction of legislation and infrastructure which makes it easier for everyone to walk, cycle and use public transport, reduces the demand for vehicle travel, and levels up access to work and social opportunities.
Feasibility
Norway has shown that a phase out is achievable in a relatively short timeframe. In January 2020, fully electric car sales rose to a 42.4% market share[1], up from 20.8% in 2017.[2]
Norway is seeking to phase out the sale of combustion-engine cars by 2025. To incentivise this the Norwegian Government has exempted battery-powered vehicles from taxes imposed on those running on petrol and diesel.
Opportunities to decarbonise
The ban on the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles provides an opportunity to decarbonise transport, but to effectively reduce greenhouse gases from cars in line with net zero targets, it is also vital that the amount of vehicles trips made in the UK are reduced.
The UK Government has pledged to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Surface transport is the single largest contributing sector to the UK’s carbon emissions, with cars contributing to 55% of domestic transport emissions in 2018[3]. Reducing emissions from cars needs to be prioritised, and the most effective strategy will be reducing trips made while accelerating the electrification of vehicles.
This is emphasised in research collated by Transport for Quality of Life, which indicates that if the UK is to deliver its carbon emissions reduction targets, then a broader focus on fewer, not just cleaner, vehicle trips is required.
The research outlines two scenarios for large scale uptake of less polluting vehicles, which both suggest reducing vehicle trips will be required to meet climate change targets[4].
Accordingly, it is necessary for the Government to investigate policy options for traffic reduction in the order of 35-58% between now and 2030-35, and invest in transport modes which make it easier for people to make journeys without using cars where possible.
In practice, this means:
Reducing demand for car use and scrapping road building commitments
Given the contribution of vehicle trips to carbon emissions, to tackle the climate crisis we need also focus on reducing demand for vehicle trips, including longer journeys which make up the bulk of emissions from cars.
This should include:
Reviewing planned investment in road building
Building new roads is will drive demand for car use and carbon emissions, negating the carbon savings of switching to electric vehicles.
Research by Transport for Quality of Life shows that The Roads Investment Strategy 2 (RIS2) will add 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (20 MtCO2) to UK emissions between now and 2032[5].
These extra emissions, as a result of more road capacity, will negate 80% of the benefit arising from the switch to electric vehicles on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) between now and 2032.
This increase is particularly alarming, as in order for us to meet our climate commitments, emissions from the SRN already need to be cut by 167 MtCO2 over the next 12 years (2020 – 2032), over and above the savings that will occur because of the switch to electric cars. The added emissions due to RIS2 will make this challenging task still harder.
Furthermore, since Covid-19 the travel habits of people have changed across the UK. This includes:
We are not aware of any evidence that clearly shows investment on this level is still necessary.
Implementing road traffic reduction targets
Therefore we strongly recommend the UK Government reviews RIS2 and associated funding investment in order to:
The UK Government should urgently work towards annual reduction targets to reduce motor vehicle usage in line with government climate change targets. Progress should be reported against publically for both local and strategic roads.
In terms of existing policy mechanisms available to reduce road traffic, the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 (RTRA) requires the Secretary of State either to write a report which:
However, the RTRA only requires the Secretary of State to fulfil their duties under RTRA 1998 “At such times as he deems appropriate”. The Secretary of State complied with the RTRA 1998 by issuing a report in 2000 entitled ‘Tackling congestion and pollution’, but there have been no subsequent reports.
Further, the 2000 report focused on addressing congestion and pollution caused by road traffic, rather than reducing vehicle usage. The report recommended road capacity improvements, while pollution was tackled by encouraging the motor industry to promote cleaner vehicle technology.
Given that increasing vehicle capacity on roads and at junctions induces demand for car travel[6], and consequently levels of traffic, it is clear that this system is not working, and that there should be subsequent and regular RTRA reports or similar mechanisms, that change this approach, and introduce genuine traffic reduction targets.
Invest a minimum of £8bn in walking, cycling and low-traffic neighbourhoods over the next 5 years
To provide people with better options for making short, local journeys without their car, we need to invest more in walking and cycling. Funding for walking and cycling is far below required levels if we are to make walking and cycling a normal choice for people and reduce car use.
Investing in cycling and walking can contribute to our economic recovery from Covid-19 and levelling up, with the potential to create 103,000 jobs in the next two years[7].
There are a number of key areas where walking and cycling contribute towards economic performance. These are:
In 2020 the Government announced £2 billion of ring-fenced funding for walking and cycling which was accompanied by an ambitious document ‘Gear Change’ that outlined the areas in which this funding can be spent and laid out a new target that half of all journeys in towns and cities are cycled or walked by 2030. This accompanies existing targets in the ‘Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy’ to double cycling and increase walking by 2025.
This was a welcome first step, but the second Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy must continue to aim higher. Over the next five years a minimum of £8bn is required to make walking and cycling the normal choice for people for short journeys or as part of longer journeys integrated with public transport.
This investment also needs to better address all people’s needs and prioritise where need is greatest. Currently too much investment focuses on improving infrastructure for commuter trips into and out of the city centre. This ignores the travel needs of many people and changing travel habits following Covid-19.
Walking and cycling investment should focus more on connecting areas with reduced public transport options, areas of higher deprivation and unemployment, or tackling journeys most likely to contribute to climate change.
Investment needs to prioritise the infrastructure we need to make walking and cycling attractive, welcoming and comfortable – protected space for cycling, better pavements and increased crossing priority; and low-traffic neighbourhoods across all our cities and towns.
Reform planning to embed active in new and existing developments and adopt the 20 Minute Neighbourhood concept
The planning system has been failing to create beautiful and vibrant neighbourhoods or communities. It does little to support the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
Too many new developments are built in remote locations, or are designed in ways that lock people into car dependency and have little in the way of services and amenities within walking distance[14][15]. This is bad for our health, our communities and the environment.
We are calling for the 20-Minute Neighbourhood principle for all cities and towns to be embedded in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Sustrans wants to see the 20-Minute Neighbourhood concept adopted as a central principle of the planning system, where residents are able to meet most of their needs within a 20-minute round walking trip.
Planning should ensure developments are built in the right places, to better building design standards, and ensure our neighbourhoods are attractive places to live and where there is a greater incentive to walk, cycle or use public transport, rather than drive.
In order to address this, we have three core recommendations for reforming planning:
The challenges that come with banning the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles
A switch to entirely zero emissions vehicle fleet is a welcome step to reducing the UK’s surface transport carbon output, but introducing the policy in isolation will fail to address the factors which are preventing a genuine and inclusive levelling up in economic growth, health, job opportunities and air pollution.
As outlined, one of the main challenges associated with banning the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles will be introducing parallel policies which reduce the demand for car use and the negative externalities that come with that.
Electric cars are still cars, and issues of poor air quality, traffic congestion, carbon emissions, injuries and deaths associated with road danger, and poor accessibility to jobs and services will continue to exist if the existing vehicle fleet simply becomes zero emissions.
The challenges related to the ban on the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles include if not implemented alongside policies which reduce demand for car use include:
Poor access to work and social opportunities
The UK’s dependency on cars to travel to work and social events limits opportunities for people without access to a vehicle to fulfil their potential and travel freely. Levelling up access to these opportunities will require a reform of the planning system and transport investment priorities;
Lower income households have lower levels of car ownership, with female heads of house, children, young and older people, ethnic minorities and disabled people concentrated in this group. In addition, there are considerable affordability issues with car ownership that can lead to a risk of transport poverty. A zero emissions vehicle fleet is not a helpful mobility option for people who are less likely to have access to a vehicle in any case, or for whom owning a vehicle is a severe financial burden.
Increasing access to work and social opportunities would be better achieved by:
Reforming planning
We have three core recommendations for reforming planning:
Sustrans wants to see the 20-Minute Neighbourhood concept adopted as a central principle of the planning system, where residents are able to meet most of their needs within a 20-minute round walking trip.
If this principle was put at the heart of plans for new developments in cities and towns and the approval process, new communities would be made up of compact, mixed use developments, where workplaces, schools and shops are close to homes and integrated with the transport system focusing on walking, cycling and public transport. This would support beautiful, healthy and inclusive communities.
This principle should also be used to bring an end to developments going ahead where local amenities are not found within a 20-minute return walk from new homes as a result of bad design or being in the wrong location.
We are also calling for the reform of Planning Practice Guidance, as this does not adequately include guidance on the need to implement high quality cycling and walking infrastructure in new developments and should be reformed. There should be specific planning guidance on embedding walking and cycling infrastructure in new developments, to aid planners.
This will complement the work of Active Travel England that will act as a statutory consultee within the planning system to press for adequate cycling and walking provision in developments over a certain threshold, and provide expert advice on ways in which such provision can be improved.
Additionally, the National Cycle Network should be embedded within the NPPF and updated planning guidance as a UK-wide network of national importance.
The Network connects to every major town and city. It should be regarded as a national asset in the NPPF and should be referenced as something that new developments should connect people to. Local planning authorities should assist in the completion of the Network and key links to and from the Network through the mechanism of new development. Currently, the vast majority of new developments do not create convenient and safe links to existing routes which would enable more people to walk and cycle between and within settlements.
Although the Network is not currently referred to in the NPPF, it is referred to in the national planning policies of the devolved nations. We are asking for this to be rectified, as there should be a consistency of approach for what is a UK-wide national infrastructure asset.
Investing in walking and cycling
Investing in cycling and walking can help with direct job creation, by providing better access to jobs and stimulating construction projects. There is potential to reduce social and economic inequity and provide affordable, healthy and safe mobility for people.
Recent analysis by Transition Economics[16] compared the job creation potential of 23 different infrastructure projects that the government could invest in as part of Covid-19 economic recovery.
Their research found that building cycle lanes and pedestrian infrastructure have the highest employment multiplier, i.e. creating the most jobs per £1 million invested, after energy efficiency retrofit projects.
The modelling undertaken estimates that cycling and walking infrastructure projects could create 32.6 immediate jobs per £1 million invested per year, mostly in construction and in the supply chain that supports it. These are sectors that have had high proportions of workers furloughed, with 40.5% in construction and 28.8% in manufacturing, respectively. These jobs are distributed across the country, supporting local economies.
Air pollution
Focusing on reducing vehicle miles could also help better tackle the air quality challenges currently facing towns and cities, which are likely to remain even if the entire domestic vehicle fleet becomes zero emission.
Air pollution is the term given for a number of different substances in the air that are harmful to human, animal and plant life as well as the built environment including Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM2.5).
Between 28,000 and 36,000 early deaths are attributable to air pollution each year in the UK[17], and road transport is responsible for 80% of roadside NO2 pollution where legal limits are being broken[18].
Given that 45% of particulate matter emissions from vehicles are come from tyre and brake wear (15% comes from exhaust emissions)[19], replacing petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles with electric vehicles will not effectively curtail the emissions of particulate matter, and local air quality is not likely to significantly improve.
This further demonstrates the value in pursuing a strategy which seeks to reduce all vehicle trips.
Traffic congestion
Congestion is getting worse in cities across the UK and current projections have suggested a cost to the economy of £6.9 billion per year[20]. Introducing a zero emission vehicle fleet would not help to reduce traffic congestion if demand for vehicle use was not reduced at the same time.
According to the British Chamber of Commerce the expenses associated with congestion are on average thought to cost each individual business approximately £17,000 a year[21]. It is apparent that the wider economy would greatly benefit from a healthier and more efficient transport system. Reduced congestion is a key output from the TAG economic appraisal framework[22], providing an output related to reduced car usage. Modal shift from the car to walking and cycling will reduce congestion.
Physical inactivity
Physical inactivity costs the UK £7.4 billion per year, and costs the NHS £1 billion per year[23].
Equally, evidence shows that people who are obese or carry excess weight are associated with an increased risk of the following for Covid-19: a positive test, hospitalisation, advanced levels of treatment (including mechanical ventilation or admission to intensive or critical care) and death[24].
Making it easier for people to build exercise into their daily lives can help to reduce these costs. If cycling trips were doubled every eight years across just seven major cities in the UK, 34,000 long-term health conditions would be averted, saving the NHS £319 million[25].
Replacing the existing vehicle fleet with zero emissions vehicles will not help to tackle the challenge of physical inactivity and ill health if it is not also made easier for people to build exercise into their daily routines.
Road danger
Replacing the existing vehicle fleet with electric vehicles will do little to protect vulnerable road users from collisions involving vehicles or improve the perception that roads are dangerous for walking and cycling. Perceptions of danger on the roads is the main reason why people do not choose to walk or cycle.
Vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, have much higher casualty rates per mile travelled in comparison with the other road user groups, such as people driving[26]. In 2016 more than 99% of pedestrian collision deaths in the UK involved motorised vehicles.
The most effective methods of addressing road danger for vulnerable road users include:
1b. The actions required by Government and private operators to encourage greater uptake of electric vehicles and the infrastructure required to support them
We agree that infrastructure, such as charging points, will need to be implemented in order to encourage greater uptake of electric vehicles.
However, charging infrastructure should not be implemented in a way which takes space for people walking and cycling, and should be regulated to prevent trip hazards from private charging equipment.
Similar to dockless cycle or shared e-scooter schemes, there is the risk that charging infrastructure could be placed on the pavement, cluttering streets and taking away space for people walking.
Street clutter is not only frustrating for pedestrians, but can make streets difficult to navigate for many people, including disabled people and people with pushchairs. It is crucial that any charging infrastructure which cannot be safely incorporated into the existing streetscape, such as in a lamppost, is not placed on the pavement.
Similarly, charging infrastructure should not be implemented in a way which could lead to charging cables stretching across pavements, cycle lanes or roads. Regulations should also be introduced to prevent private charging equipment (such as cables), trailing from homes to vehicles where they cross a pavement.
Cables provide a trip hazard and can be difficult to navigate by wheelchairs, pushchairs and children’s scooters, even when covered with a rubber “rumble strip”.
1d. The Government’s ambition to phase out the sale of new diesel heavy goods vehicles, including the scope to use hydrogen as an alternative fuel
The phase out of sales of new diesel HGVs presents an opportunity to remodel and reshape the way that some deliveries are consolidated and the vehicles used to deliver goods. This would help to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution, and decrease road danger.
We appreciate that some HGV journeys will be unable to be replaced, but for those that can, investment should be directed towards freight consolidation centres on the outskirts of cities, towns and residential areas.
Consolidation centres
Whilst freight transport and distribution may underpin the social and economic development of urban areas delivery vehicles are often not full, and sometimes empty, on both outwards and return journeys. Freight consolidation centres can help to reduce vehicle trips through a process which involves the goods destined for the city centre being delivered to a remotely-located consolidation centre outside the city where they are consolidated into a single delivery which is made by a single, well-filled vehicle.
In this way, the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) circulating in the urban area is cut and as a result energy consumption is reduced and fewer pollutants emitted.
E-cargo bikes and last mile solutions
The last leg of deliveries to homes from consolidation centres could be made by smaller electric vehicles or e-cargo bikes.
Research by Transport for Quality of Life suggests that cargo bikes and electrically-assisted cargo bikes have significant potential to replace vans in urban areas, and to help reduce congestion and pollution.
They estimate that “between 10-30% of trips by delivery companies could be substituted by (e-)cargo bikes…these figures suggest that there is potential for traffic mileage in urban areas to be reduced by about 1.5-7.5%, if (e-)cargo bikes took over from delivery and service vehicles for suitable trips.”[27]
Support should also be given to the cycle industry to increase UK cycle manufacture and production. Incentives should be provided for businesses to switch to electric cargo cycles for last mile logistics.
2a. The case for introducing some form of road pricing and the economic, fiscal, environmental and social impacts of doing so
Road pricing should be considered and consulted on as part of a package of measures to reduce demand for car use and make it easier for more people to walk, cycle and take public transport. More research needs to be done to determine how to ensure any charge is equitable and does not lead to greater transport poverty within the UK.
Road pricing could yield environmental, social and economic benefits if fewer people made journeys by car, and carbon emissions, air pollution, road danger and road congestion were consequently reduced. We also accept that road pricing offers a potential solution to recouping falling VED and fuel duty revenue, and that road pricing based on a “pay according to how much you drive” could be a “fairer” way of pricing car use than VED and fuel duty. Road pricing crucially also means that there is a fiscal incentive to drive less, as opposed to a flat fee which incentivises driving more in order to extract maximum value.
However, some people could suffer disproportionate economic and social impacts as the result of road pricing being introduced. Some people rely on their cars for work or social journeys often due to a lack of alternative transport options, or because they need to carry large or heave loads. For some people, owning and running a car to make these journeys is a severe financial burden; we need to understand what impact the introduction of road pricing would have on people who suffer from fuel / transport poverty alongside introducing fairer alternative transport which makes it easier for them to make walking, cycling and public transport trips.
Better provision for walking, cycling and public transport could be funded through reapportioning parts of funding for the Strategic Road Network.
2b. Which particular road pricing or pay-as-you-drive schemes would be most appropriate for the UK context and the practicalities of implementing such schemes?
The Government should explore road pricing models based on the London Congestion Charge for other cities outside of London.
It is likely that public transport coverage would need to reach a specific threshold, such as in central London, for a charge to be publically acceptable. Revenue from pricing schemes should also be ring-fenced and allocated to walking, cycling and public transport schemes locally.
2c. The level of public support for road pricing and how the views of the public need to be considered in the development of any road pricing scheme
Demonstrating and effectively communicating that road pricing schemes are fairer than the current financial models and would improve transport locally are much more likely to be publically acceptable than introducing a fee as a revenue raising mechanism.
The public are not generally favourable of costs for driving, but recent research has shown that people are in favour of reducing traffic and air pollution, and improving public transport, walking and cycling links locally[28].
Accordingly, road pricing schemes should not just be a mechanism to raise revenue from driving, but should be part of a package of measures which replaced the flat VED and fuel duty fee as a fairer model of payment and was also ring-fenced for spending on sustainable transport schemes locally.
2d. The lessons to be learned from other countries who are seeking to decarbonise road transport and/or utilise forms of road pricing
Decarbonising transport requires a holistic approach and a commitment to decarbonise that is embedded into planning, transport, health and economic policy. Introducing policies in isolation will not be effective.
As outlined throughout this response, decarbonising transport requires fewer, not just cleaner vehicle trips. This will require investing in public transport and active travel infrastructure, and ensuring that planning is reformed so that people can access everyday services and jobs without having to use a car.
At the same time, all policy should align with decarbonisation; for example, investing in road infrastructure which will increase demand for vehicle use is not a policy that should be pursued if we truly want to decarbonise transport.
February 2021
References
[1] Reuters, 2020, Electric cars grab 44% market share in Norway in January
[2] Reuters, 2019, Tesla boom lifts Norway's electric car sales to record market share
[3] DfT, 2020, Decarbonising Transport: Setting the Challenge
[4] Transport for Quality of Life, 2018, More Than Electric Cars
[5] Transport for Quality of Life, 2020, The carbon impact of the national roads programme
[6] DfT, Latest Evidence On Induced Travel Demand: An Evidence Review, 2018
[7] TUC, 2020, Can an infrastructure stimulus replace UK jobs wiped out by COVID19 crisis?
[8] INRIX, 2020, Congestion cost UK economy £6.9 billion in 2019
[9] Raje. F, and Saffrey. A, The Value of Cycling, Department for Transport, University of Birmingham, Phil Jones Associates
[10] Lawlor. E, 2013, The Pedestrian Pound
[11] Transport for London, 2013, Town Centres 2013
[12] Transport for London, 2016, Town Centres 2014/15
[13] Hendriksen, I. J., Simons, M., Garre, F. G., & Hildebrandt, V. H., 2010, The association
between commuter cycling and sickness absence. Preventive medicine, 51(2), 132-135.
[14] BBC News, 2018, Young couples "trapped in car dependency"
[15] BBC, 2020, New UK housing "dominated by roads"
[16] Transition Economics, June 2020, Can an infrastructure stimulus replace
UK jobs wiped out by COVID19 crisis?
[17] Kings College London, 2018, Associations of long-term average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide with mortality
[18] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2017, UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations, An overview
[19] Transport for London (2014) Improving the health of Londoners: Transport Action
[20] INRIX, 2020, Congestion cost UK economy £6.9 billion in 2019
[21] British Chambers of Commerce, 2008, The Congestion Question
[22] UK GOVT, 2019, Transport Analysis Guidance
[23] NICE, 2018, Physical activity and the environment
[24] PHE, 2020, Excess Weight and COVID-19
[25] Sustrans, 2019, Bike Life, Transforming Cities
[26] Reported road casualties in Great Britain: 2019 annual report
[27] Transport for Quality of Life, 2018, Potential for e-cargo bikes to reduce congestion and pollution from vans in cities