COP15: Up Against the Clock World Transport Policy & Practice on “no excuse” results

The latest edition of our favorite sustainable transport journal, World Transport Policy and Practice, was published today and Volume 15. Number 3 is now available for immediate downloading from journal.newmobility.org. Bikes, school travel, traffic systems and good planning systems all get a good run in this latest issue, but it is the editor's strong words on the run-up to Copenhagen you will want to read first.

Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 15, No. 3

- To download Vol. 15, No. 3: journal.newmobility.org

Editorial

With less than two weeks to go to the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, what would all of our authors and subscribers labouring away in the vineyards of sustainable transport really want the decision-takers to do?

For the purposes of this brief discussion we will not dwell on whether or not they are able to or want to make decisions, but move immediately on to what they might do if we assume ability and a will to act. Let us assume that the planet and all its species is/are facing a significantly elevated probability of catastrophe linked to climate change. Let us assume that the probabilities of severe consequences are positively correlated with greenhouse gas emissions. The more of these gases we produce and the longer they live in the atmosphere, the more likely they are to drive planetary systems towards some of these negative consequences:

* Switching off of the Gulf Steam with large temperature drops in NW Europe

* Higher atmospheric temperatures releasing carbon locked up in tundra and adding non-linear change to carbon build up and concentration (runaway feedback)

* Rising sea levels wiping out large areas of densely populated territory e.g. coastal Bangladesh

* Ice shelf/sheet/glacier melt reducing the area covered by reflecting white ice and adding to the area covered by absorbing darker colours (i.e. the sea)

* More disease related to insect vectors and the spread of disease

* More Katrina type disasters

* Large scale out-migration from environmentally stressed areas of the planet

* Loss of food production

We can of course dismiss all this as nonsense, but on the balance of probabilities and on the consideration of precautionarity, and on the evidence of win-win situations, it would be a mistake to be dismissive. We already have enough understanding of transport problems to realise that sorting out climate change can also sort out air pollution and reduce the 3,000 dead bodies every day associated with our love of large metal boxes hurtling around our streets and roads. There is very little to lose from a huge programme of carbon reduction in transport and a great deal to gain.

In a rational, precautionary world concerned with social justice, health and happiness it would be reasonable to expect our political leaders in Copenhagen to agree to some basic changes in the way governance, policy and justice work. We could quite reasonably expect:

* A commitment to reduce greenhouse gases from all sources including transport by a minimum of 80% by 2050 in the EU, US, Australia and all OECD countries

* The adoption of a “no excuses” policy framework. All transport modes will produce a reduction in greenhouse gases by 80% including cars, trucks, shipping and aviation

* All reductions will be “real” and will not be the result of fancy arithmetic related to emissions trading or investing in schemes elsewhere in the world that enable carbon credits to be purchased

* All transport modes shall have all external costs fully internalised (moving around will cost more)

* Cities will be re-engineered to foster significant increases in walking and cycling and to reallocate highway space so that as much space as possible is allocated to zero carbon modes

* Transport subsides of all kinds to high speed trains, aircraft, aviation and trucks shall cease

This would make a good start but of course it won't happen. Our political leaders do not have the will to deliver serious climate change policies and do not believe that a low carbon future is both possible and desirable.

In this sense they have taken up exactly the same position as those politicians in the UK and France and Holland in the late 18th century who argued strongly in support of slavery. It was possible at that time to put forward a strong argument in favour of slavery just as it is now possible to put forward strong arguments for a business as usual scenario based on fossil fuels, hyper-mobility, globalisation and free trade. The slavery debate now looks quite shameful. How could senior politicians and business leaders argue in favour of slavery? Nevertheless, they did and several votes in the UK House of Commons rejected attempts to abolish slavery.

This is the scenario for Copenhagen. How can senior politicians and world leaders duck and weave and dodge and not agree “no excuse” carbon reduction strategies to be in place as quickly as possible? Nevertheless, they will and once again it will be shameful, but this time we are up against the clock and we may well not have the luxury of several repeated attempts that worked in favour of the anti-slavery campaign.

John Whitelegg
Stockholm Environment Institute

Contents, Vol. 15, No. 3

Editorial - John Whitelegg

Abstracts & Keywords

Cooperative web based bicycle routing database for trip planning, including dynamic weather integration - Marcus Wigan, Poul Grashoff, Fred van der Wouden

School Travel Modes preferences in Dar Es Salaam City - Hannibal Bwire

Traffic Systems for an Improved City Environment - Lars Ekman, Lena Smidfelt Rosqvist, Pia Westford

Good planning principles far from enough to make a change Post-script on Traffic Systems for an Improved City Environment - Lena Smidfelt Rosqvist

# # #

For more on Eco-Logica and the Journal, click here - http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/worldtransport.html

--> Read on:

World Transport Policy and Practice Vision for transport in the UK to be in place by 2050

John Whitlegg, founder and editor of our sister publication, the Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice makes a frontal attack on the need for radical overhaul of our transportation arrangements to move them closer to something that is sustainable and just. He takes the European Commission to task for utterly failing to develop a viable "Vision for the future of EU transport" -- and offers a vision of his own.

This big picture vision of the sector opens the just published Vol. 15, No. 2 edition of the journal which is freely available at http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp15.2.pdf

Commission's 'future of transport strategy needs a reality check says T&E

In June this year the European Commission which is responsible for high level policy development for 27 member countries and over 300 million citizens produced its “Vision for the future of EU transport”. It was so bad that words fail your editorial team and we shall leave it to an impressive Brussels based organisation to comment on the “vision”:

Commission's 'future of transport' strategy needs a reality check says T&E

Brussels, Wednesday, June 17, 2009

The European Commission has published its vision for the future of transport policy in the European Union. But the paper completely underestimates the challenges and proposes no concrete solutions, according to Transport and Environment.

Jos Dings, director of Transport and Environment said: "If this is the strategy for fixing rapidly growing pollution, congestion and accidents caused by transport, then we have a big problem: it doesn't even scratch the surface."

"Climate change, Europe's flagship environmental policy, is mentioned only in passing, despite the fact that transport is the single most important sector holding back progress."

"The International Energy Agency has recognised that conventional oil is running out and ‘unconventional’ alternatives such as tar sands will be even costlier and dirtier. But the Commission doesn't give any clue as to how it proposes to deal with this issue of fundamental strategic importance to the EU."

"The question of managing demand for transport is not mentioned, and even traffic congestion which costs the European economy EUR 120 billion every year gets little serious attention."

"The current economic climate, and the impact that will have on national infrastructure budgets and on demand for transport is not considered. Governments need lean and green transport policies now. Road pricing schemes could help plug the gap and also bring huge economic and environmental benefits. But this has also escaped the Commission's attention."

"The only positive aspect of this paper lies in the recognition that technological leadership in environmental technology will benefit the European economy, not drag it down, as has often been said in the past."

# # #
Source: European Federation for Transport and the Environment - http://www.transportenvironment.org/News/2009/6/Commissions-future-of-transport-strategy-needs-a-reality-check-says-TE/

The original European Commission document can be seen on: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/doc/2009_future_of_transport/2009_comm_future_of_transport_policy_en.pdf


# # #

The World Transport Policy and Practice Vision for transport in the UK to be in place by 2050

Given the lack of understanding on the part of the European Commission on what a vision could and should involve we have produced our own vision and sent it to them today. This is it:

Transport in the future will be zero carbon. The zero carbon future will provide better access for more people to more things than is currently the case. Traffic congestion and time wasted stuck in jams will be a thing of the past and time currently wasted on commuter trips will be spent on rewarding and enriching activities.

All urban and rural areas will by 2050 have significantly enhanced public transport and cycling facilities bringing high quality and low cost transport choices within the reach of everyone. Those who opt not to use a car will save thousands of pounds a year by avoiding the fixed and variable costs of car ownership and use and will also avoid the uncertainties and potential disruption of oil price shocks as the world adjusts to shortages of supply and increased demand from developing countries. Individuals and families will have much improved air quality, reduced noise and stress from traffic and much improved community life stimulated by reduced levels of motorised traffic and reduced traffic on streets and through villages.

The shift to bike, foot and public transport will increase the spend of local people in local areas and will result in a renaissance of local shops and newly created jobs in local communities serving the increased level of spending locally that previously leaked out to global oil and car making sectors of the economy. Those that have given up individual car ownership will have an average of £3000-£4000 each to spend on local goods and services giving a further boost to local economies.

The car will still exist and be used by those who feels it has an advantage over other choices but fuel prices will rise to cover the full costs of supporting motorisation (the polluter pays principle) and parking will be recognised as a valuable asset that must be charged for at market rates.

Speeds will be limited to a maximum of 20mph/30kph in all residential areas and through villages to support the rapid take up of walking and cycling and to create high quality living environments. Speeds on motorways and dual carriageways will be limited to 60mph to reduce CO2 emissions and to encourage the take-up of eco driving techniques.

Cars will be alternatively fuelled either as plug in electric vehicles (PEVs) or hydrogen powered or hybrids of various kinds and all electric vehicles will be using electricity from a decarbonised electricity supply system based on renewable energy and micro-generation in all businesses, homes, schools and health care facilities.

Businesses of all kinds will find ways to introduce flexible working, videoconferencing, more family and child friendly working practices and will actively promote the end of the long commute. Links between businesses, businesses and customers and workers at home or in local “area offices” will be facilitated by a large number of electronic methods.

Deliveries of raw materials and goods to manufacturing sites will exploit the advantages of canals, inland waterways, estuaries and the UK’s excellent network of 300 ports as well as make better use of the rail network e.g. the German “Rollende Landstrasse” where whole lorries go on trains for sections of their journeys. Lorries will operate in ways that avoid cities, avoid long trunk-haul routes on motorways and are fuelled by alternatives to diesel that significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

More UK residents than is currently the case will take holidays within the Uk and broaden the concept of tourism to include a wide range of activities that involve gaining new skills and becoming expert in a wide range of sports and leisure activities. Traditional package tourism based on flights will be much reduced in number as a result of changes in the price of oil and the clearly developed policies of the Treasury to internalise the externalities associated with flying and driving. Travel opportunities to European destinations will be available in abundance and rail dominated (including Greece and Turkey). Shipping, cruises and ferries will be an integral part of the holiday experience.

The aviation industry will still be important but no larger than in 2009 and airlines and companies owning airports will be far more profitable and successful as they diversify into all kinds of communication and mobility activities and services. There will be significant job gains across all sectors of the aviation, rail and bus industries.

The health of all citizens will improve in the zero carbon world. There will be more lively local economies making jobs available in the community. There will be more social interaction giving everyone the health generating social context of living in a supportive community. There will be less noise and air pollution with attendant health benefits and much more physical activity contributing to a reduction in rates of obesity.

The demands on public finance and spending will be reduced. There will be no need for new roads, bypasses and motorway widening at current prices approaching £25 million per mile. A healthier and more supportive population and community will reduce NHS costs e.g. the predicted £50 billion pa costs of obesity by 2050.

Local communities will be far more resilient in the sense that a larger proportion of jobs, food and other items of consumption will be sourced locally and this will reduce the risks of disruption associated with long distance sourcing, oil price disruption and vulnerability to interruption in supply as transport infrastructure succumbs to damage from extreme weather events or shortfalls in fuel availability.

Cities will change so that there is far more green space and woodland and a higher number of homes and employment opportunities than is currently the case in low density developments. Land for eco-efficient car free housing can be found on car parks that will now be surplus to requirements and the projected need for new homes can be met without taking away valuable land in rural areas that will be needed for increased food production.

Cities will be far more friendly and supportive of children and the elderly with calmer environments, reduced traffic and increased feelings of confidence nd security. The shift away from the car will increase the amount of walking and cycling and the degree of mutual, friendly “surveillance” of all those using the public realm by each other. Everyone will feel safer. Children will rediscover the delights of independent mobility, the joys of getting to and from school, friends and local swimming pools under their own steam and the elderly will find it much easier to cross roads, hold conversations on the street and engage with neighbours in ways that ends social isolation and its related health damaging consequences

Urban and rural residents alike will be happier (Layard, 2004). A much improved local environmental quality linked to higher levels of integration with local food production, an income from microgeneration, heightened involvement with neighbours and community activities and a greater feeling of security and comfort from a more resilient society will all contribute to increase happiness and to higher levels of social cohesion.

The transformation of urban and rural society into one that has shifted a rather one dimensional emphasis on economic growth to one based on community growth, growth in happiness, reduced pollution, improved health and the creation of far more jobs, jobs that are far more evenly located across every locality and far more resilient to the unpredictable shocks and challenges of a globalised economy will also bring enormous benefits to population groups and sub-groups. No groups or sub-groups are worse off in the decarbonised transport future when compared with 2009.

John Whitelegg, Editor
World Transport Policy and Practice

# # #

John Whitelegg is visiting Professor of Sustainable Transport at Liverpool John Moores University and Professor of Sustainable Development at University of York's Stockholm Environment Institute, and is founder and editor of the Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice. John is a local councillor in Lancaster, and Leader of the North West (of England) Green Party.

# # #

It goes without saying that comments are warmly invited. Just below.

--> Read on:

John Whitelegg on The global transport challenge

The world’s transport system wastes lives, health, and money – and is choking the planet. There is a world transport crisis. Three thousand people are killed every day in road-traffic accidents, air pollution from vehicles is bathing our cities in a chemical soup and deaths from respiratory diseases exceed deaths in traffic accidents. Citizens need to take control.

- John Whitelegg, Editor, World Transport Policy and Practice

This would be a high price to pay for a perfectly functioning transport system that delivers people and goods speedily and efficiently but this is not the case. All countries and cities spend a lot of money for a transport “solution” that has failed. In a rare example of global unity and shared experience car commuters in Los Angeles are stuck in traffic jams in the same way as they are in Bangkok, Delhi, Beijing and Rio.

Our highway-based transport systems purchased at huge expense are failing miserably to deliver anything. We have created a very expensive way of organising transport in cities, one that is grossly inefficient and one that exacts a terrible penalty in deaths, injuries and lifetime disability.

This penalty is an affront to human rights. Traffic conditions make it very difficult indeed for children and the elderly to cross roads. Women with childcare duties find public transport difficult to use and the poor who rely on walking and cycling are exposed to more danger than the car occupant. Large sums of money are spent in Delhi and Kolkata on expanding roads, highways and flyovers that can only benefit the richer members of the urban elite. The poor are left to suffer with inadequate pedestrian pavements and polluted air.

Donald Appleyard, in his famous book Livable Streets (1981), described how people living on streets with light traffic had more friends and acquaintances than people in cities with heavy traffic. They lived in more sociable, friendly and community-based environments.

Citizens know this instinctively and seek out high-quality environments away from the noise, dirt and danger of cars and lorries. The problem is that this privilege is usually only available to the rich, which is why 90% of the people killed in road-traffic accidents are likely to be poor, cyclists, pedestrians or bus users in developing countries. Transport has become a socially polarised experience with poor people living in poor-quality environments whilst richer people drive past them, cocooned in their cars on the way to a rich variety of destinations inaccessible to the poor.

The need to lead

Meanwhile, cars and lorries account for about 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions and are amongst the fastest growing sources of these gases. This presents politicians with problems. Most politicians would accept that climate change and all its attendant dangers are at or near the top of the list of things that they think are important – but they dare not “touch” transport.

Most cities, regions and countries want more roads. Beijing would like another five-ring road to add to its existing five-ring roads. Most cities would dearly like an international airport, or a bigger one if they already have one. The World Bank funds new roads in India and China. This locks all cities into higher levels of fossil-fuel dependency and higher levels of greenhouse gas production at the same time as prime ministers make speeches about reducing greenhouse gases. No wonder ordinary citizens are confused about what they should do.

It need not be like this. The former mayor of Bogotá in Colombia, Enrique Penelosa, showed the world that a relatively poor city in a relatively poor country can set the highest standards for transport. He declared car-free days, established a highly reliable and cheap to use bus system (TransMillenio) and built a 17-kilometre bike and pedestrian route to connect poor parts of the city with the downtown area. This stands in stark contrast to most African, Indian and Chinese cities that are investing heavily in new roads and doing nothing for the poor and those who live in polluted conditions.

The Bogotá experience is not an isolated one. Curitiba, Brazil has pioneered an outstandingly successful bus “rapid transit system” and done this, like Bogotá, at much lower cost than a metro rail system and with much wider geographical benefits to the region. London has reduced congestion by 30% with its congestion pricing and Copenhagen has achieved some of the highest bicycle use of any city in the world.

The message in global transport patterns is clear. There are no technical, economic or organisational problems in finding solutions but there is an enormous difficulty in achieving political will. Where real progress has been made this has occurred because of strong leadership by key politicians. This presents us all with good news and bad news.

The good news is that there are very few, if any, barriers to innovative and successful transport projects aimed at creating liveable and sustainable cities. They are not expensive to achieve and they present few, if any, technological problems. The significant barrier everywhere is political will. The London congestion charge would not have gone ahead were it not for the unusual drive, ambition and single-mindedness of the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone.

Werner Broeg in Munich has carried out research around the world on politicians and he has found that in most cases politicians have established views about traffic and transport characterised by a belief that everyone wants to drive, that the car is the most desirable mode of transport and that anything perceived of as anti-car will result in loss of political office.

Another road is possible

Broeg’s work shows that politicians routinely underestimate the appetite of the electorate for radical change. Citizens would like to see more public transport, walking and cycling and would like to see more convivial and sociable use of public space. Citizens are willing to reduce car trips given the right information, incentives and support. In York, England a project aimed at reducing car trips produced a 16% reduction in these trips in a six-month period in its target group.

All this points to the need for a change in worldview underwritten by citizen action. It is possible to create highly desirable city living spaces, to eliminate deaths and injuries on the roads and to reduce obesity and greenhouse gases – and to do this at much lower cost than building roads, which makes the problems worse. The way forward is citizen action and the generation of enlightened politicians. We are still in the foothills of understanding how to move in this direction.

# # #

John Whitelegg is visiting Professor of Sustainable Transport at Liverpool John Moores University and Professor of Sustainable Development at University of York's Stockholm Environment Institute, and is founder and editor of the Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice. John is a local councillor in Lancaster, and Leader of the North West (of England) Green Party.

______________________________________________________
Archives: This piece written by John Whitelegg, editor in chief and founder of our (older) sister publication the Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice (founded in 1993), appeared back in 2005 as part of openDemocracy’s online debate on the politics of climate change. The debate was developed in partnership with the British Council as part of their ZeroCarbonCity initiative - a two year global campaign to raise awareness and stimulate debate around the challenges of climate change. His analysis and proposals are every bit as pertinent, and urgent, today as they were back then. But here we are, not just two years later but 2x2 years later, and to be perfectly honest there is no sign of relief in sight.

What is holding us back? A knowledge deficit? A leadership deficit? A communications deficit? At least in part an inability of those who fully understand the topic to communicate to the public at large? Back to work, eh?

And in very much this spirit John welcomes your suggestions for authors, articles and commentaries on the challenges of sustainable transport in WTPP. You can communicate your ideas to him directly via j.whitelegg@btinternet.com or Skype: johnwhitelegg.

The editor

--> Read on:

Sustainable Transport that Works: Lessons from Germany

Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
Volume 15, Number 1. April 2009

Editorial - John Whitelegg:

We live in interesting times. Almost all the largest world economies are assembling packages of financial support for the car industry and financial incentives to persuade citizens to throw away an older car and buy a new one. The recession and the rise in unemployment is a personal disaster for many and the pressure to “rescue” industries is intense. Sadly global thinking and decision taking on this matter is way out of line with evidence and with the need to identify opportunities out of the mess rather than continue on the same lines that created the mess.

Investing in the car industry is wrong. We need large scale investment in things that create real jobs in real communities and have a huge impact on the big things that we are all trying o address including peak oil, climate change and poverty eradication. Investing in renewable energy anywhere in the world is a “no brainer”. It will create lots of jobs in every community. Designing, equipping and retro-fitting every building with whatever is needed to reduce energy use by 50% is also a front-runner for climate and job creation success.

Investing in high quality streets for walking and cycling and public transport will do the same but throwing cash at an early 20th century industry based on moving objects that weight about 75 kgs in a metal container weighing about 1 tonne is not very intelligent. We can restructure cities, mobility and accessibility and in one highly co-ordinated policy deal with road safety, health, obesity, climate change and peak oil but it looks like the answer is, as usual, “no”.

In this issue of WTPP we introduce a new comment section. Comments are invited for future issues and should be lively, topical and relevant and will be given careful consideration. In this issue Kurt Lesser talks about the urge to rescue the car industry and Glenn Lowcock discusses speed limits and oil dependency.

Our main article (Buehler and Pucher) returns to a theme we often emphasise in this journal. They talk about sustainable transport in Germany especially Freiburg and demonstrate that carefully designed and integrated policies can create an exceptionally high quality of life with high levels of cycling and wide community and fiscal benefits. This should be required reading for every council officer in the UK and North America. We then have an article by Bjorn Haake who takes issue with an earlier Pucher and Buehler article on cycling and promotes education rather than infrastructure change. This is an important debate and even though we disagree with Haake we are delighted to facilitate the discussion. Pucher and Buehler then respond to Haake’s arguments and readers are invited to come to their own conclusions and let us know if they want to submit a comment or another contribution to develop the debate further.

John Whitelegg
Editor, The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
Eco-Logica Ltd. ISSN – 1352-7614

Volume 15, Number 1 Contents

Editorial - John Whitelegg

No Stopping the Gravy Train of Car Support? - Kurt Lesser

Moving toward a non oil dependant society with a proposed road speed limit of 30mph - Glenn Lowcock

Sustainable Transport that Works: Lessons from Germany - Ralph Buehler, John Pucher

The Importance of Bicyclist Education - Bjorn Haake

Cycling for a Few or for Everyone: The Importance of Social Justice - John Pucher, Ralph Buehler

* For your copy of the journal click here - http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp15.1.pdf

--> Read on: