Note. This is a stand-alone report/document page without links. To return to main pages, either close or minimise this window.

This is an article taken from Transport 2000's annual review for 2004. It encapsulates many of the transport issues FOE is concerned about and we heartily endorse its views and the work of Transport 2000 (T2000).

**************

Road vehicles are now responsible for more than 20 per cent of the UK's total carbon dioxide emissions and that contribution is rising rapidly. And yet the Government, although it leads the world in rhetoric on climate change, effectively remains in denial over the growing contribution of road traffic. Commenting to the media during the year, we said that so far Ministers had done "little more than bite their finger nails on transport and the environment, failing to do anything significant for fear of upsetting motorists".

Traffic also kills nearly 3500 people a year, injures a total of 300,000 and contributes to ill health in many other ways, including obesity and asthma. Roads cut across communities, destroy our countryside and diminish our quality of life. The arguments for traffic reduction are urgent and clear.

One ray of hope is the Government's open mind towards a national road charging scheme, a key area of lobbying for Transport 2000. We said: "There is no magic wand to solve traffic congestion but road charging could be the next best thing." In spring 2003 Transport Secretary Alistair Darling invited us to a seminar to launch the debate on road user charging. A key outcome was a road user charging steering group to report to the Government, with Transport 2000'S Stephen Joseph the sole environmental group representative. A feasibility study concluded that a nationwide charging scheme would indeed be feasible within ten years, that clear benefits would ensue and that the Government Should drive forward the initiative soon with trial schemes. The Government responded favourably to this conclusion in the Transport White Paper, The Future of Transport: A Network for 2010, published in July 2004.

And charging has already been shown to work. A year after its introduction, the London congestion charge proved even more successful than anticipated, cutting congestion within the zone by 30 per cent with 65,000 fewer car movemets each day. There are also more, faster and more reliable buses, cycling has been increased and the environment for pedestrians has been transformed. We said charging had clearly been "a shot in the arm" for central London and called for its extension to other parts of London and beyond.

Our concern is that London should remain a showcase for charging led us to organise a public London Mayoral election debate in May 2004 at which the main candidates could be questioned on their plans for charging in the capital. The event was packed with ordinary Londoners and campaigners keen to quiz the candidates on all aspects of transport with the need for sustainable transport clearly and vigorously communicated to the candidates. With partner organisations we also published a set of key transport demands for London, with which we lobbied candidates.

Following the success of charging in London, we have had discussions with other local authorities seriously considering schemes and spoke at conferences in Edinburgh and Dublin.

For now, though, the cost of fuel remains the dominant means of managing demand. The run up to the 2004 Budget provoked the usual flurry of protests against possible rises in fuel duty and once again we pointed out the facts: between 1997 and 2003 the cost of train travel rose by 3 per cent and bus by 8.2 per cent, while motoring costs fell by 4.8 per cent and are set to fall further still as cars become more fuel-efficient. We pointed out too that, once again, climate change looked like being forgotten in the debate on fuel duty.

When announced, the Budget saw the Chancellor bowing to populist pressure. We said he had given motorists "an easy ride" and criticised the failure to impose a higher level of VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) on gas guzzling vehicles, something we had argued for to tackle "the arms race on the road".

Jan 2005

Note. This is a stand-alone report/document page without links. To return to main pages, either close or minimise this window.