Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Private car ownership unsustainable, warns House of Commons committee

Report says urgent action needed to hit climate change targets including encouraging walking and cycling

A House of Commons select committee has warned that private car use is unsustainable if the UK is to meet targets to tackle climate change and is urging the government to invest in cycling and walking as well as public transport.

In a comprehensive report published today entitled Clean Growth: Technologies for meeting the UK’s emissions reduction targets the Science and Technology select committee criticises the government for what it sees as a lack of clear policies to enable the country to meet its stated target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

It outlines 10 recommendations which it believes will help meet that goal, including incentivising homeowners to make their properties more energy-efficient, supporting onshore wind and solar power and reducing vehicle emissions.

On the latter point, the report says: “The government’s current long-term targets for decarbonising transport focus heavily on reducing exhaust emissions and increasing sales of low-emissions vehicles, rather than delivering a low-emissions transport system.

“In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation. 

“The government should not aim to achieve emissions reductions simply by replacing existing vehicles with lower-emission versions. 

“Alongside the government’s existing targets and policies, it must develop a strategy to stimulate a low-emissions transport system, with the metrics and targets to match.

“This should aim to reduce the number of vehicles required, for example by: promoting and improving public transport; reducing its cost relative to private transport; encouraging vehicle usership in place of ownership; and encouraging and supporting increased levels of walking and cycling.”

Last October, the government froze fuel duty for the ninth successive year, continuing a policy that has been strongly criticised by environmental campaigners.

Earlier this month, it was revealed that train fares are set to rise by around 3 per cent next year, and in its report the committee added: “The government should commit to ensuring that the annual increase in fuel duty should never be lower than the average increase in rail or bus fares.”

Reaction to the report includes calls for the government to ensure that adequate funding is provided to make it easier and safer for people to travel by bike and on foot.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

27 comments

Avatar
Rick_Rude | 4 years ago
2 likes

Cars are needed since the loss of local employment for most people. Combine that overpriced and underavailable public transport and you've got every reason to run a car. My wife works 25 miles away, mostly straight down a motorway. If you wanted to get there by public transport it would take literally hours.

My local town has now lost all easy connections to there nearest industrial estate 5 miles away.  It would now take  1 hour 20 minutes to do 5 miles by bus. You have to go out and away to come back in on a differenent bus. Madness. When it was running it was down to one journey in a morning and one after work. 

I work near enough to home to chose what I feel like. Tbh most last winter I used the car but this spring summer I've mostly used the motorbike or cycled. If the weather is good I rarely use the car. Loads of people where I work could cycle but I'm guessing looking at them, exercise isn't their top priority. 

Avatar
Simon E replied to Rick_Rude | 4 years ago
2 likes
Rick_Rude wrote:

Cars are needed since the loss of local employment for most people.

So why are such a large percentage of journeys under 3 miles? Why do so many people drive past the Park & Ride facility and try to to park as near to the shops as possible, preferably without paying?

And for all the whining about work being far away, many people choose jobs that are far from where they live (or choose to live far from where they work) because government policy has encouraged that. Car adverts have sold us a fantasy which we want to believe is a good thing. It isn't.

I quit travelling 50 miles each way to work 15 years ago. It was a relief. After a few months in my new job frustration that my shitty 5 mile cross-town drive took 20-25 minutes so I got my bike out. It was barely any slower to cycle, I lost 1/2 stone in 6 weeks and loved it.

Yes public transport is overpriced, has suffered decades of ever shrinking support and has been gutted by privatisation, but road transport is hugel subsidised so car drivers don't pay anything like the true cost of their journey.

https://rdrf.org.uk/2012/12/31/the-true-costs-of-automobility-external-c...

"If we compare the costs of infrastructure & externalities (environment, crashes, etc.) with state revenues (charges and taxes), we easily conclude that motorists do not pay the costs they impose on society & for which they should be responsible."

https://twitter.com/IFPedestrians/status/1159787518612639744

We need a complete reversal of the last 50+ years of policy - those huge roadbuilding projects, big cash incentives for car manufacturers etc etc - and investment in decent infrastructure. It won't be a magic wand and we will have to adapt. Holland was a similarly car-centric nation in the 1970s but they turned that around.

People can wail and gnash their teeth all they like about the downsides of the changes we are going to have to put in place but regarding the climate the fact is that our backs are well and truly up against the fucking wall.

Avatar
handlebarcam | 4 years ago
0 likes

In that case, maybe we should stop subsidizing, through tax breaks for and clearing up the mess caused by, the automotive and petrochemical industries, and by extension motorists.

Avatar
carlosdsanchez | 4 years ago
5 likes

Problem is that cars have been so cheap to own and run for so long - the past 50 years or so - that entire generations of people have completely organised their lives around car ownership. That is not something that is easy to unpick.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to carlosdsanchez | 4 years ago
5 likes
carlosdsanchez wrote:

Problem is that cars have been so cheap to own and run for so long - the past 50 years or so - that entire generations of people have completely organised their lives around car ownership. That is not something that is easy to unpick.

 

Yes, it's self-perpetuating.  Not properly costing private car travel means more people adopt it, which means a larger lobby to continue subsidising it.  It's like a zombie apocalypse - the more people are infected, the harder it becomes for the survivors to avoid being bitten.

Avatar
dobbo996 replied to carlosdsanchez | 4 years ago
0 likes
carlosdsanchez wrote:

Problem is that cars have been so cheap to own and run for so long - the past 50 years or so - that entire generations of people have completely organised their lives around car ownership. That is not something that is easy to unpick.

Quite so. The car is convenient and people are lazy. My wife drives to our town centre. It's a 10 minute walk away. Bonkers. And, unlike many people, she is very aware of the issues. If she can't be persuaded (to put herself out) what hope is there for the rest?

What's needed is a government brave enough to do things differently, to lead, but governments are short-lived beasties, party-driven, and afraid of losing votes. Telling people they can't have their own car, parked outside their house, and drive it whenever and wherever they please, is a vote killer. So what to do? My gut feeling is that only a 'shock event' will spur the politicians into real action. Something like the flooding of central London due to increasing sea levels.  

 

 

 

Avatar
HoarseMann | 4 years ago
3 likes

We need to start by not incentivising people to commute long distances. This is the effect that new roads and rail links have. It tempts workers to perhaps buy a property further from work or get a job further from home. All it does is spread communities more thinly and increase the energy expended in transport.

They should bin HS2 for a start. It will only really benefit wealthy commuters and just increase the possible ‘suburbs’ of London. Spend those billions on active transport infrastructure and incentivising businesses to be less London centric.

Communities that people work in and live in are the happiest. Who really wants to spend hours every day travelling with strangers, unable to meet up with friends after work because they live miles away and have a train to catch?

Avatar
srchar | 4 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb, it's definitely doable, but once you have a kid or three in tow, it's a completely different equation.

Personally, I think the type of driving that many people do is the issue. If you need to move 5 people plus a fortnight's gear 300 miles, a car is an efficient option. Doing the same commute every day with only one person in the car, not so much.

I wonder how much our ridiculous housing costs have to do with the amount that people drive. If you want to live anywhere near work or good public transport links, the cost increases massively.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to srchar | 4 years ago
0 likes
srchar wrote:

Rich_cb, it's definitely doable, but once you have a kid or three in tow, it's a completely different equation.

Personally, I think the type of driving that many people do is the issue. If you need to move 5 people plus a fortnight's gear 300 miles, a car is an efficient option. Doing the same commute every day with only one person in the car, not so much.

I wonder how much our ridiculous housing costs have to do with the amount that people drive. If you want to live anywhere near work or good public transport links, the cost increases massively.

I think you're right about the housing. Cardiff is currently in the middle of a huge expansion and from the submitted plans the provision for active travel is pretty dismal.

Looks like we'll be getting plenty more cars to go with all the new houses...

Avatar
jaysa | 4 years ago
2 likes

Given how good humans are at being lazy and ignoring anything inconvenient, and how weak Democratic Governments are at enacting policies for the common good because they won't get re-elected, this will end badly for all of us.

I'm about to commit to no more flights and use trains instead (e.g. TGV). I don't fly long-haul already. What to do for people whose families are scattered around the globe - do we say ships only?

Meanwhile Heathrow is dead-set on a third runway because of planned growth in air traffic ...

Avatar
kingsouth | 4 years ago
3 likes

I don’t think people understand the scale of change required to get anywhere near the net zero carbon target. The luxury of being able to do a 300 mile round trip in your own personal vehicle would have to be a thing of the past.

We are living in a period of time where car ownership is cheap due to the low cost of borrowing and fuel prices are lower than they were 5-7 years ago. You only need to look on any residential street in the UK to see the number of two or three car households.

Electric vehicles aren’t going to be a practical proposition for many people due to the lack of parking spaces suitable for charging points.

Electric bikes are great for short journeys and these are a practical mode of transport for most peoples journeys.

Avatar
Shades | 4 years ago
0 likes

'Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted' and.........you can't get it back, unless you're prepared to shoot it, which you're not going to do.

Motoring and this country are a bit like the US and gun control; we had a chance to change direction years ago but we failed to take it and now the government can't/won't take on the motoring lobby.

Avatar
vonhelmet | 4 years ago
3 likes

Forget incentives, we need a stick, not a carrot. If the cost of driving a car properly reflected all the externalities - pollution, injury and death, roadwear, etc - you'd force people to seek an alternative. The other side of that is actually providing credible alternatives, which just aren't there as yet, as public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive.

Avatar
brooksby replied to vonhelmet | 4 years ago
0 likes
vonhelmet wrote:

Forget incentives, we need a stick, not a carrot. If the cost of driving a car properly reflected all the externalities - pollution, injury and death, roadwear, etc - you'd force people to seek an alternative. The other side of that is actually providing credible alternatives, which just aren't there as yet, as public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive.

Am I being too cynical if I suggest that if private motor transport was made much more expensive so as to price people out of it (the stick) then the companies running the buses and trains would just see an opportunity to ramp their own fares up, since since nobody would have any alternative.

Avatar
Bmblbzzz replied to brooksby | 4 years ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

Forget incentives, we need a stick, not a carrot. If the cost of driving a car properly reflected all the externalities - pollution, injury and death, roadwear, etc - you'd force people to seek an alternative. The other side of that is actually providing credible alternatives, which just aren't there as yet, as public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive.

Am I being too cynical if I suggest that if private motor transport was made much more expensive so as to price people out of it (the stick) then the companies running the buses and trains would just see an opportunity to ramp their own fares up, since since nobody would have any alternative.

Maybe, maybe not. But public transport also needs to become more expensive if it's to truly reflect those same externalities. It benefits from similar hidden subsidies as private cars, as well as some obvious direct ones, just to a lesser extent. 

Avatar
hmas1974 replied to Bmblbzzz | 4 years ago
2 likes
Bmblbzzz wrote:
brooksby wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

Forget incentives, we need a stick, not a carrot. If the cost of driving a car properly reflected all the externalities - pollution, injury and death, roadwear, etc - you'd force people to seek an alternative. The other side of that is actually providing credible alternatives, which just aren't there as yet, as public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive.

Am I being too cynical if I suggest that if private motor transport was made much more expensive so as to price people out of it (the stick) then the companies running the buses and trains would just see an opportunity to ramp their own fares up, since since nobody would have any alternative.

Maybe, maybe not. But public transport also needs to become more expensive if it's to truly reflect those same externalities. It benefits from similar hidden subsidies as private cars, as well as some obvious direct ones, just to a lesser extent. 

This goes against the policy of European countries with far more advanced cycling infrastructure - Holland, Denmark, Germany.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to hmas1974 | 4 years ago
1 like
hmas1974 wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:
brooksby wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

Forget incentives, we need a stick, not a carrot. If the cost of driving a car properly reflected all the externalities - pollution, injury and death, roadwear, etc - you'd force people to seek an alternative. The other side of that is actually providing credible alternatives, which just aren't there as yet, as public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive.

Am I being too cynical if I suggest that if private motor transport was made much more expensive so as to price people out of it (the stick) then the companies running the buses and trains would just see an opportunity to ramp their own fares up, since since nobody would have any alternative.

Maybe, maybe not. But public transport also needs to become more expensive if it's to truly reflect those same externalities. It benefits from similar hidden subsidies as private cars, as well as some obvious direct ones, just to a lesser extent. 

This goes against the policy of European countries with far more advanced cycling infrastructure - Holland, Denmark, Germany.

 

I don't think event the sainted Dutch go nearly far enough for my taste.  And I don't think the hidden subsidies for most public transport are really that large, not given the level of fares.  The total accounting is very opaque, though, that's true.  There are both hidden subsidies and hidden benefits for public transport.  And it all gets mixed up with other issues, like where the housing and jobs are.

Avatar
srchar replied to vonhelmet | 4 years ago
1 like
vonhelmet wrote:

public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive

It's pretty shocking inside London. It's definitely unreliable, it's not that much cheaper inside the zones, and outside the zones it's not uncommon to pay £5k a year for a 20 mile each-way season ticket.

Avatar
srchar | 4 years ago
3 likes

I cycle everywhere I can, but the end of private car ownership is, frankly, a pipe dream, as evidenced by current politicians' timetabling of 2050. I've tried car clubs, long-term hire, peer-to-peer rental, taxis the lot - only sometimes does it work out cheaper and it's always less convenient.  When technology and legislation has advanced sufficiently that we have shared fleets of self-driving cars to call upon, then the end of private car ownership will be viable. I hope that has happened by 2050, but I'm not holding my breath.

Before I get flamed out of existence, I'm all for investment in non-road transport infrastructure and for decreasing the priority given to cars on our roads.  But your average non-cycling, non-public-transport using driver needs incentives that just aren't there and aren't ever likely to be.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to srchar | 4 years ago
0 likes
srchar wrote:

... When technology and legislation has advanced sufficiently that we have shared fleets of self-driving cars to call upon, then the end of private car ownership will be viable. I hope that has happened by 2050, but I'm not holding my breath.

Before I get flamed out of existence, ...

Not trying to flame you. But, assuming we reach the state where shared self-driving cars are as convenient as current private car ownership, the measure of that will be that we drive just as many miles. The difference will be that the shared car will also put on further miles driving itself between customers, instead of being parked up on a driveway.
Unless something exceeds the convenience:cost ratio of cars then they will retain their position in the pecking order.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Sriracha | 4 years ago
3 likes
Sriracha wrote:

Not trying to flame you. But, assuming we reach the state where shared self-driving cars are as convenient as current private car ownership, the measure of that will be that we drive just as many miles. The difference will be that the shared car will also put on further miles driving itself between customers, instead of being parked up on a driveway.
Unless something exceeds the convenience:cost ratio of cars then they will retain their position in the pecking order.

I think that's a common misconception about driverless cars, they won't do much driving around empty as they'll be routed to the nearest available job.

In some cases ( eg shift change at a hospital/factory) that may not require them to move at all.

Pick up trips will also be eliminated (driving somewhere solely to pick some one/thing up) so the number of journeys to airports/train stations etc will be massively reduced.

What driverless cars won't need to do is park outside an owner's house for 95% of their existence.

The amount of road space and land freed up by this alone will allow a huge increase in active travel infrastructure without impacting current road capacity at all.

As we will only require enough cars to meet peak demand (+contingency for maintenance etc) we will see a huge reduction in the number of cars produced which will have as big an environmental impact as reduced usage.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to srchar | 4 years ago
5 likes
srchar wrote:

I cycle everywhere I can, but the end of private car ownership is, frankly, a pipe dream, as evidenced by current politicians' timetabling of 2050. I've tried car clubs, long-term hire, peer-to-peer rental, taxis the lot - only sometimes does it work out cheaper and it's always less convenient.  When technology and legislation has advanced sufficiently that we have shared fleets of self-driving cars to call upon, then the end of private car ownership will be viable. I hope that has happened by 2050, but I'm not holding my breath.

Before I get flamed out of existence, I'm all for investment in non-road transport infrastructure and for decreasing the priority given to cars on our roads.  But your average non-cycling, non-public-transport using driver needs incentives that just aren't there and aren't ever likely to be.

My own experience is quite different.

I live in Cardiff so not exactly a metropolis but a reasonably sized city. I gave up my car for 3 years and relied on public transport/taxis for anything that wasn't possible by bike.

Taxis were available with an average of 5 mins notice so that was never an issue.

Travelling long distances by train was a massive pain in the arse as most of my family live quite rurally so hire cars filled in when needed.

These were also available with minimal notice.

Overall I saved a lot of money as well as doing my bit for the planet and my neighbours' lungs.

If you live in a city I think car free living is easily achievable, with better infrastructure for active travel I think it would be an option for many more people.

Avatar
Housecathst | 4 years ago
5 likes

But how will 98% of the population travel any distance greater than the couch to the fridge with out a car? 

Avatar
giff77 replied to Housecathst | 4 years ago
1 like
Housecathst wrote:

But how will 98% of the population travel any distance greater than the couch to the fridge with out a car? 

Personally I believe it all started with the TV remote rather than attempting to reach the fridge. Though on saying that I have a mate who has a beer cooler beside his couch. 

Avatar
burtthebike | 4 years ago
1 like

Not exactly the ringing endorsement of cycling and walking that any impartial review would have concluded, but at least it did acknowledge their existence.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
6 likes

So, are they about to get ready to set a date to start thinking about that review on traffic safety yet?

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
5 likes

But, but, but..driving.

Latest Comments