1 of 10

Phil Goodwin

Professor of Transport PolicyCentre for Transport & Society

UWE, Bristol

SPT Travel Planning Seminar Glasgow, 17.2.2011

Smarter Cuts:The Future of Transport

Funding

2 of 10

Phil Goodwin

Professor of Transport PolicyCentre for Transport & Society

UWE, Bristol

SPT Travel Planning Seminar Glasgow, 17.2.2011

Smarter Cuts:The Future of Transport

Funding (?)

3 of 10

(an English perspective...)

Phil Goodwin

Professor of Transport PolicyCentre for Transport & Society

UWE, Bristol

SPT Travel Planning Seminar Glasgow, 17.2.2011

Smarter Cuts:The Future of Transport

Funding (?)

4 of 10

1990s – a decade of rethinking

1989 – ‘Roads to Prosperity’ – building roads to match forecast traffic increases

1991-4 – but could not be done, so need to manage demand, for both environmental and economic reasons – pricing, sustainable transport policies

The transition was during the Conservative years, but consolidated by Labour 1998 Transport White Paper...

...followed by some ‘problems of delivery’ – the 2000 ‘10’ year plan...

5 of 10

2000s – another decade of rethinking

Hot and cold on pricing – from ‘within ten years’ to ‘not sooner than 10 years’ to we’ll think about it in ten years

2002 – Government very half hearted on ‘soft measures’ – maybe 5% traffic effect at most

2004 Smarter Choices Report: a watershed– 11% traffic effect, maybe 20% in peak urban conditions– IF coherent programme of ten years action– Many smart measures – marketing, advice, e-commerce –

with travel planning particularly good value for money

2004-8 Sustainable Travel Towns project demonstrated it can be done

6 of 10

So What is the problem?

Smarter Choices supported, but as an optional add-on - not embedded as the perceived priority at local or national level

We know funding will be reduced

We accept it should be cut most on the ‘fringe’ areas of policy

The battle of the fringe

7 of 10

Transport Planning Society members

“TPS has conducted a membership survey with particular emphasis on the impact of the recession...(showing) ... the following top priorities:• travel behaviour change (61.2%)• road maintenance (56.5%)• walking and cycling (55%)• non-high speed rail capacity (52.6%)• Only 18% identified high speed rail as a priority, and

major trunk road schemes were even lower at 9%. Only 10% supported grants for electric cars”.

TPS Press Release 14.10.2010

8 of 10

Versus - presumption that ‘economy’ = ‘fast long distance’

LTT 12.11.2010

9 of 10

Cost-Benefit Analysis is not the perfect tool... but let’s see

Suppose total benefit B produced by expenditure on transport X is a sum of a independent expenditures, on road building, new public transport systems, smarter choices, traffic management and so on. For each, a greater benefit can be obtained by spending more money, but at a diminishing rate, as the best opportunities are carried out first, then the next best etc.

Maximise total benefit B* by making the marginal return per £ spent equal for each type of expenditure, since at any other point it will be possible to increase benefit, by swopping expenditure from one class to another.

10 of 10

With caveats, information included for:

Local Safety, Smarter Choices, Cycling, Concessionary Fares, Local Bus, Local Roads, New Light Rail, HA Roads, Rail, Intelligent Speed Adaptation

(but not yet for maintenance, pedestrianisation, traffic calming except safety, optimisation of elements within policy areas, synergetic and counter-synergetic effects)

11 of 10

Value for Money for Ten Policies

12 of 10

ImplicationsThe most important result is the emerging proposition that

the areas of high value for money are smarter choices, cycling and pedestrian schemes, local safety schemes, some bus schemes (especially priority); much greater than traditional road capacity enlargement...(and an unresolved argument about heavy and light rail).

Traditional road building has much poorer value for money

So shift funding from worst to best. The new pattern of spending would then have: quick benefits, local focus and cheap – all plus points in current political context

13 of 10

Indirect Taxation A knotty problem 2003-2009, now resolved*

Suppose you build a road, and it induces more traffic, and this generates fuel tax revenue – is this a ‘benefit’ in social cost benefit terms?

*Or is it?

14 of 10

That indirect tax puzzle?

LTT 24.12.2010

15 of 10

The Smarter Choices Paradox

• Current allocation of funds is very small even in the champions; most funds still for traditional infrastructure, maintenance, etc. And capital spending is ‘good’ while revenue spending is ‘bad’.

• That is a danger that cuts will operate in the opposite way – small ‘discretionary’ spending may just vanish;

• But the best value for money in that context is to increase SC spending, not reduce it, to get swift cheap benefits.

• This will not be easy to understand at local level.

16 of 10

What next?

From convergence to divergence in BCRs

Unstable assumptions about growth and behaviour

The magnetism of flagships

The word ‘economy’ relaxes usual standards of evidence

Will the bonfire of the quangos lead to a burning of expertise and experience? – CfIT’s last words:

17 of 10

CfIT’s Last Words

‘Even with reduced spending limits, a good deal more net benefit could be generated by re-balancing the residual spend away from road capacity, to be focused instead on lower cost, high return schemes. These include road safety, and travel behaviour change through "smarter choices" measures, like school and workplace travel plans, car clubs, cycling, teleworking and internet shopping’.

18 of 10

‘Locking in the benefits of recession’

‘Transport quality not quantity’ is timely

Clear away some of the inheritance of flagship projects? (But do they ever go away?)

Appetite for some cheap ways of making things better, not expensive ways of slowing down the pace at which they get worse

And the elephant in the room:

19 of 10

Car use has already levelled off and may even be falling