- Email: [email protected]
Transport, communications and the economy: Imagining the 21st century, the 1992 Cambridge Econometrics Annual Conference, Cambridge Econometrics, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK, 6–7 July 1992
Conference report Gridlock and the greenhouse effect Transport, Communications and the Economy: Imagining the 21st Century, The 1992 Cambridge Econometrics Annual Conference, Cambridge Econometrics, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK, 6-7 July 1992
The programme for this conference included the following observation on the interaction between traffic and the environment: ‘At the end of the 20th century we are witnessing a growth in traffic demand that is unprecedented and seems to be irresistible Further construction of airports, roads and railways is likely to mean only more of the usual problem of development, and to require further loss of countryside. Perhaps even more serious is the conflict between traffic demand and the global environment, . Is the answer to be tighter regulation, or a greater use of market-based instruments?’ Dr Terry Barker, Chairman of Cambridge Econometrics, opened with a discussion of the UK Road Congestion Gap (the gap between 1980 traffic levels and the UK Department of Transport’s forecasts for the year 2020), and the Emissions Gap (between stabilization at the 1990 level, which the Earth Summit in Rio agreed should not be exceeded, and the level projected for 2020). He examined some road transport policies to deal with both these ‘gaps’: command and control instruments such as closure of city centres to road traffic, minimum engine efficiency standards (to control congestion and emissions respectively), market-based instruments such as road pricing and parking charges (to limit congestion), and a carbon tax (to control emissions). Michael Spackman, Chief Economic Adviser at the UK Department of Transport, explained his department’s role in forecasting trends in traffic and emissions. The DTp is projecting continuing growth in road traffic, albeit at a much lower rate than in the past,
92
and at a rate which they expect to continue to decline over time. His view is that road traffic emissions other than CO2 will decline, following regulations already in hand, and that there will over time be considerable improvements in fuel economy. Spackman put forward the view that the future is likely to be determined very largely by personal choice, against a background of market-based politics often supported by regulatory standards for environmental quality. In complete contrast, Dr Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, argued strongly that government will have to intervene ‘as the public interest can now be clearly seen to be adversely affected by the exercise of individuals acting according to their own preferences ’ He contended that an altogether new approach is needed which will reduce the need for transprioritize modes transport port, according to public interest objectives, and minimize the adverse effects of the remaining traffic patterns. Keith Buchan, Director of the Metropolitan Transport Research Unit, then spoke on market-based solutions to the congestion gap. He argued that complex electronic schemes for road pricing may take a decade to develop. In the meantime, it would be best to put some simple pay-and-display systems into place, to provide a valuable testing ground for a market-based approach, with immediate results. He contended that a good case exists for proceeding with an experiment, in central London say, with a discount for local residents and a single controlled zone. One of the discussants of Buchan’s
paper, Dr Tony Fowkes of the University of Leeds, spoke of the problems involved with pricing people off the roads. A doubling of the price of petrol would only result in something like a 10% reduction in road traffic. And, if one did succeed in pricing some people off the roads, thus reducing congestion, it would encourage others to come in! Another discussant was Robert Burton, Assistant Director (Policy and Programme) of the Transportation Department, Cambridgeshire County Council. He described his council’s search for a balanced transport strategy, which would be economically and environmentally sustainable. The scheme they are considering would charge motorists for using congested roads within the city. A meter within each car would monitor the speed of the vehicle, and debit a smart card whenever the vehicle was travelling below the optimum speed. David Banister, of University College London, then presented a paper arguing for planning and technical solutions to urban transport congestion. He claimed that ‘the expected growth in Europe’s economy over the next 20 years will lead to a crisis of mobility and congestion’. He argued that public attitudes and political inertia must change if gridlock is to be avoided. The discussant of this paper, Chris Hope of the University of Cambridge, then put the argument that the present crisis in transport parallels the energy problems of the early 1970s. He argued for the establishment of a Transport Efficiency Office to encourage better use of transport resources by the public and business, and a Transport Audit to help businesses to determine how transport use might be improved. Jonathan Porritt gave the afterdinner speech, in which he questioned whether the Department of Transport could really claim to be taking environmental issues seriously simply because it had undertaken a tree and hedgerow replanting programme. He suggested that since 75% of all trips undertaken are for less than five miles, the government should look at promoting sustainable means of trans-
UTILITIES
POLICY January
1993
Conference
port - walking and cycling - backed up by improved public transport. He also suggested that it was very important for work to be undertaken on understanding the ‘psychological entrapment’ of the car: its role as a status symbol, and extension of the self, especially for males. On day two, the first session was concerned with market-based and technical solutions to the emissions gap. The speakers were Marjan Pronk, of the Netherlands Economic Institute, and Dr Bert van Wee, of the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands. They spoke about the FACTS model, developed to forecast ownership and use of passenger cars in the Netherlands, as well as their emissions and energy consumption. From calculations carried out with the model, they have found that to attain environmental targets set for 2010 both technical and market-based measures will be required. Dr Mark Hepworth, Founding Director of City Information Technology International (CITI), then presented his paper on ‘Information flows versus transport flows’. He put for-
UTILITIES
POLICY January 1993
ward the idea that ‘telework’ or ‘telecommuting’ could be encouraged as a way of reducing the demand for travel. He also argued that, beyond the simple trade-off between ‘wires and wheels’, there are even more profound changes which transport policymakers need to reckon with. He suggests that, as the 21st century draws nearer, transport and telecommunications interests will find themselves locked together in deciding how markets and regulatory frameworks are to develop. Professor Ken Button, Professor of Applied Economics and Transport at Loughborough University, was the discussant of Hepworth’s paper. He spoke of the already established use of telebanking, the growing use of teleworking, and the potential for teleshopping (though this may be delayed until virtual reality becomes a reality, enabling people to ‘feel’ the goods). He gave some reasons why videoconferencing had not become as widespread as predicted a few years ago, including cost, user acceptance, and the threshold factor (reached when enough people have the equipment to make its use viable).
report
There were searching questions and lively debate after all the sessions. A panel discussion on the afternoon of the last day gave delegates another opportunity to air their views. The panel consisted of Terry Barker, Mayer Hillman, Michael Spackman and Hans Dumoulin of the non-profit organization Energy, Technology and Environment. During the panel discussion, Paul Ekins of the University of Cambridge mentioned that Germany and the Netherlands were working on a new measure of gross domestic product which takes into effect environmental costs. This seems to be one of the most urgent needs at present; until we have the right targets against which to measure our progress, how can we hope to move in the right direction? Paul Ekins also had one other suggestion: that the problem of emission gases would soon be solved if people were forced to direct their exhaust pipes inside their cars!
Robin Frampton Group Editor - Energy & Resources Butterworth-Heinemann
93
The programme for this conference included the following observation on the interaction between traffic and the environment: ‘At the end of the 20th century we are witnessing a growth in traffic demand that is unprecedented and seems to be irresistible Further construction of airports, roads and railways is likely to mean only more of the usual problem of development, and to require further loss of countryside. Perhaps even more serious is the conflict between traffic demand and the global environment, . Is the answer to be tighter regulation, or a greater use of market-based instruments?’ Dr Terry Barker, Chairman of Cambridge Econometrics, opened with a discussion of the UK Road Congestion Gap (the gap between 1980 traffic levels and the UK Department of Transport’s forecasts for the year 2020), and the Emissions Gap (between stabilization at the 1990 level, which the Earth Summit in Rio agreed should not be exceeded, and the level projected for 2020). He examined some road transport policies to deal with both these ‘gaps’: command and control instruments such as closure of city centres to road traffic, minimum engine efficiency standards (to control congestion and emissions respectively), market-based instruments such as road pricing and parking charges (to limit congestion), and a carbon tax (to control emissions). Michael Spackman, Chief Economic Adviser at the UK Department of Transport, explained his department’s role in forecasting trends in traffic and emissions. The DTp is projecting continuing growth in road traffic, albeit at a much lower rate than in the past,
92
and at a rate which they expect to continue to decline over time. His view is that road traffic emissions other than CO2 will decline, following regulations already in hand, and that there will over time be considerable improvements in fuel economy. Spackman put forward the view that the future is likely to be determined very largely by personal choice, against a background of market-based politics often supported by regulatory standards for environmental quality. In complete contrast, Dr Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, argued strongly that government will have to intervene ‘as the public interest can now be clearly seen to be adversely affected by the exercise of individuals acting according to their own preferences ’ He contended that an altogether new approach is needed which will reduce the need for transprioritize modes transport port, according to public interest objectives, and minimize the adverse effects of the remaining traffic patterns. Keith Buchan, Director of the Metropolitan Transport Research Unit, then spoke on market-based solutions to the congestion gap. He argued that complex electronic schemes for road pricing may take a decade to develop. In the meantime, it would be best to put some simple pay-and-display systems into place, to provide a valuable testing ground for a market-based approach, with immediate results. He contended that a good case exists for proceeding with an experiment, in central London say, with a discount for local residents and a single controlled zone. One of the discussants of Buchan’s
paper, Dr Tony Fowkes of the University of Leeds, spoke of the problems involved with pricing people off the roads. A doubling of the price of petrol would only result in something like a 10% reduction in road traffic. And, if one did succeed in pricing some people off the roads, thus reducing congestion, it would encourage others to come in! Another discussant was Robert Burton, Assistant Director (Policy and Programme) of the Transportation Department, Cambridgeshire County Council. He described his council’s search for a balanced transport strategy, which would be economically and environmentally sustainable. The scheme they are considering would charge motorists for using congested roads within the city. A meter within each car would monitor the speed of the vehicle, and debit a smart card whenever the vehicle was travelling below the optimum speed. David Banister, of University College London, then presented a paper arguing for planning and technical solutions to urban transport congestion. He claimed that ‘the expected growth in Europe’s economy over the next 20 years will lead to a crisis of mobility and congestion’. He argued that public attitudes and political inertia must change if gridlock is to be avoided. The discussant of this paper, Chris Hope of the University of Cambridge, then put the argument that the present crisis in transport parallels the energy problems of the early 1970s. He argued for the establishment of a Transport Efficiency Office to encourage better use of transport resources by the public and business, and a Transport Audit to help businesses to determine how transport use might be improved. Jonathan Porritt gave the afterdinner speech, in which he questioned whether the Department of Transport could really claim to be taking environmental issues seriously simply because it had undertaken a tree and hedgerow replanting programme. He suggested that since 75% of all trips undertaken are for less than five miles, the government should look at promoting sustainable means of trans-
UTILITIES
POLICY January
1993
Conference
port - walking and cycling - backed up by improved public transport. He also suggested that it was very important for work to be undertaken on understanding the ‘psychological entrapment’ of the car: its role as a status symbol, and extension of the self, especially for males. On day two, the first session was concerned with market-based and technical solutions to the emissions gap. The speakers were Marjan Pronk, of the Netherlands Economic Institute, and Dr Bert van Wee, of the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands. They spoke about the FACTS model, developed to forecast ownership and use of passenger cars in the Netherlands, as well as their emissions and energy consumption. From calculations carried out with the model, they have found that to attain environmental targets set for 2010 both technical and market-based measures will be required. Dr Mark Hepworth, Founding Director of City Information Technology International (CITI), then presented his paper on ‘Information flows versus transport flows’. He put for-
UTILITIES
POLICY January 1993
ward the idea that ‘telework’ or ‘telecommuting’ could be encouraged as a way of reducing the demand for travel. He also argued that, beyond the simple trade-off between ‘wires and wheels’, there are even more profound changes which transport policymakers need to reckon with. He suggests that, as the 21st century draws nearer, transport and telecommunications interests will find themselves locked together in deciding how markets and regulatory frameworks are to develop. Professor Ken Button, Professor of Applied Economics and Transport at Loughborough University, was the discussant of Hepworth’s paper. He spoke of the already established use of telebanking, the growing use of teleworking, and the potential for teleshopping (though this may be delayed until virtual reality becomes a reality, enabling people to ‘feel’ the goods). He gave some reasons why videoconferencing had not become as widespread as predicted a few years ago, including cost, user acceptance, and the threshold factor (reached when enough people have the equipment to make its use viable).
report
There were searching questions and lively debate after all the sessions. A panel discussion on the afternoon of the last day gave delegates another opportunity to air their views. The panel consisted of Terry Barker, Mayer Hillman, Michael Spackman and Hans Dumoulin of the non-profit organization Energy, Technology and Environment. During the panel discussion, Paul Ekins of the University of Cambridge mentioned that Germany and the Netherlands were working on a new measure of gross domestic product which takes into effect environmental costs. This seems to be one of the most urgent needs at present; until we have the right targets against which to measure our progress, how can we hope to move in the right direction? Paul Ekins also had one other suggestion: that the problem of emission gases would soon be solved if people were forced to direct their exhaust pipes inside their cars!
Robin Frampton Group Editor - Energy & Resources Butterworth-Heinemann
93