LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Summer 2009

by Matthew Jordan-Tank

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

Sir,
Peder Jensen highlights the growth in carbon emissions from transport in Europe and the inability of policymakers to halt the trend. One problem is the difficulty of calculating carbon reductions from ‘green’ transport projects, which has meant the only two urban transport projects have been approved so far (out of over 1,200 registered ones) under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. Clearly, both the method of making such calculations and the project approval system need simplifying in the post-Kyoto era. As an alternative, the Green Investment Scheme, which the EBRD supports under the Multilateral Carbon Credit Fund alongside EIB, offers greater flexibility by allowing host countries a means of channeling excess carbon credits into other climate change projects, such as clean urban transport.

Jensen recommends three main policies to help reduce carbon emissions from transport; demand management measures, more coordinated controls over land use to reduce the need for travel, plus full pricing to use transport networks. These suggestions are well-intentioned, but we must be careful about the way we view such problems as traffic congestion and pollution from cars. There is a real risk that people across Europe will be alienated by a blunt approach in which ’the ends justify the means.’ As British policymakers are discovering to their dismay, both the precise transport package and the way it is presented are important to achieve broad public support. In Manchester, for example, 80% of voters rejected a proposed cordon-based congestion charge in late 2008.

I would offer a few guiding principles to make green urban transport policies more attractive. First, road pricing proposals should emphasize the broader benefits, rather than focus exclusively on the costs. Pricing projects designed to reduce demand for car travel are only palatable to voters if they also offer people better public transport. Treating the two issues in tandem also makes good policy sense, since CO2 emissions per passenger/km for urban rail transport are just 10% of the equivalent emissions from cars.

Targeted road pricing is vital to achieving ‘smart’ urban transportation. But over-emphasizing these schemes’ potential to generate revenue can turn users against the idea. Policymakers should consider making road pricing “revenue neutral” by off-setting other car-related fees and taxes. One third of new revenue can go to roads, one third to public transport and one third to the general public coffers.

As road pricing can be counter-intuitive to users, a successful pilot is likely to help sell the idea, as it did in Stockholm. Drivers are also more likely to accept proposals to charge for using new lanes on a road and less likely to accept ‘free’ lanes being converted into ‘priced’ lanes. The U.S. example of tolls paid on SR-91 in California is instructive.

New technologies are also making new solutions more viable. For instance, the fall in the cost of equipment such as Global Positioning Systems opens up a range of options. Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) insurance is one very promising method of reducing total travel demand, as is a shift from traditional fuel taxes paid at the pump to mileage-based taxation. PAYD pilots in Europe and the U.S. already show promise. Finally, Active Traffic Management can reduce congestion and emissions significantly. Studies show that more efficient accident response capabilities, using CCTV bundled with other communications systems, the police or specialized emergency response units, can cut traffic delays by 20-40%.