Demand management schemes, is there a better way?

The European Commission is placing too much emphasis on the use of demand management, according to the FIA. Here, Wil Botman, Director-General of the FIA's European Bureau, explains why

Towards the end of last year, the European Bureau of the 7113 Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) released a statement which criticised the 1690 European Commission's (EC's) approach to urban traffic congestion following the adoption of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility.

In particular, the FIA voiced concerns over what it sees as the over-emphasis on demand management schemes, such as congestion charging and access restrictions. Rather than being the first-choice solution, such schemes should be among the last of quite a number of options to be considered, the organisation says. And, the FIA continues, a somewhat wider definition of 'quality of life' is needed when it comes to urban mobility. With this should come a broader outlook on urban and societal planning.

The FIA is not pushing for demand management to be shelved entirely. Director-General Wil Botman: "Perhaps in some situations demand management is a good solution. Our concern is that at present it gets far too much attention. It's not hard to see why: it's an easy and attractive solution because it's readily deployable in a short timeframe and there is the potential for big revenues.

"But there are many factors which create congestion - unplanned events such as accidents, for instance. Then, the application of more advanced traffic management and other ITS solutions is much better suited."

Framework

The FIA is advocating that demand management is seen as only one element in a package of measures which includes infrastructural adaptations, traffic management, urban and mobility planning and changes to individuals' lifestyles.

"There's an interesting debate to be had over investment in transport networks and where the money for that comes from," Botman continues. "Public transport is very heavily subsidised, whereas private road users are already very heavily taxed - nothing like what comes out of the motorist's pocket goes back into road infrastructure. It's odd, therefore, that local authorities elect to levy more on the private road user.

"London's and Stockholm's congestion pricing schemes both resulted in some improvements to public transport, partly as a means of spending the revenues. But in London the spend was less than predicted. There, the scheme has resulted in less congestion within the zone it covers but the situation has deteriorated around the periphery because of a lack of investment. And over time as people become used to such schemes their efficacy tends to fall off.

"Things need to be looked at from a multimodal perspective. With congestion charging, and especially where you want to restrict access, you have to offer alternatives - better parking, better public transport and better multimodal interconnections."

Shades of green

Botman highlights the worrying trend of giving a 'green shade' to those policies which have a revenue-raising aspect.

"The environmental credentials of demand management schemes are often highlighted by the proponents of internalising external costs. The car is seen as the bringer of all evil and there is an assumption that by banning or restricting the movement of private vehicles there will be automatic improvements in air quality. However, if you look deeper that simply doesn't hold true; modern vehicles are responsible for only a very small proportion of air pollution. Surrounding industrial activity, the heating of buildings and even prevailing winds all have an effect on a local area.

"Environmentalists narrow the definition of quality of life to noise and air pollution limitation. In reality, quality of life needs to encompass everything: our activities and movements; the loss of time which results from traffic restrictions; how we define sustainability. If you introduce congestion charging or restrictions, you take away mobility. And mobility is a part of quality of life.

"All over Europe, low-emission zones are being introduced. But the highest-emitting vehicles are often the oldest vehicles, which tend to be driven by those on the lowest incomes. It'll be those who can least afford a new car that will lose out, especially if they live where access to public transport is limited. Then there are the needs of the elderly and disabled to consider.

"Especially where local and regional authorities are looking to introduce innovative measures, the calculations of expected congestion reductions which take place ahead of deployment tend to be over-positive. People need mobility and they need certain types of transport. Try to take them away, and they'll find ways around the problem. That's been shown in London and Stockholm. Quite often the problem is merely shifted rather than solved."

Coping with realities

In developing countries where urbanisation is a feature, it is much easier to take a clean-sheet approach to transport planning. In developed countries, planners have to contend with a more restrictive environment - one cannot simply clear away large numbers of historic buildings and other features to make way for greater access, for example. In some cases, traffic management schemes are in fact implemented in order to preserve towns' and cities' character.

Botman contends that there is still much that can be done, however.

"In Brussels, where the 487 FIA's European Bureau is based, large numbers of tunnels have been built. These segregate long-distance and local traffic, and speed up traffic flows. And one can really see the difference in areas where signal synchronisation has been implemented. Green waves not only significantly speed up traffic and reduce congestion; they improve air quality because they reduce stop-go traffic.

"We also have to think about the ways we live and work. I'm not talking about introducing restrictions here; I mean the positive adaptation of our working hours and patterns. Home- or teleworking has been advocated for several years and even relatively low percentages of home workers would have a significant effect on congestion. We need to encourage developments in these areas, even though they are not immediate transport matters.

"Public transport needs to improve dramatically. If people aren't going to be allowed to use the car, then we have to provide alternatives. Cars offer a high level of efficiency and personal security and we need to address public transport's security as well as its frequency. Switching between modes needs to become easier. The railways perform particularly badly here, especially in the big cities as major termini tend to be right in the heart of things where space is at a premium. Parking is often poor or next to non-existent. As well as improving high-speed rail systems, information services have to develop to allow individuals to better plan their journeys - there's lots we can do without tearing down buildings or restricting access."

Botman thinks that concepts such as car-sharing and park-and-ride need to become much better organised in order to take account of the necessity for long-distance travel. If, he says, there are too many uncertainties travellers will be less inclined to use alternative modes.

"The FIA member clubs have tested park-and-ride schemes and published their findings in various motoring organisations' publications. The truth is that there's wide variation in the schemes encountered. In Germany park-and-ride is well developed. Elsewhere, the same cannot be said - Brussels, for instance, has no such service."

Taking responsibility

Transport policy cannot address the congestion issue in exclusivity. Botman has already touched on the labour (and, by extension, taxation) laws which need to be brought into the equation. Another element which is missing is a longer-term view. Demand management's ease of deployability plays to a common political desire: to achieve implementation and results within a single electoral cycle. From initial studies to deployment can take just a couple of years, whereas changes to employment laws (for instance) can take five to 10. Adjusting attitudes can take far longer.

When it comes to taking a lead on such matters, Botman says that the EC's potential influence is somewhat limited beyond efforts to increase standardisation and technical harmonisation.

"Decisions on implementation tend to take place at the local and regional authority levels. There's expertise enough there and I don't think that you can or need to shift those planning activities to Brussels," he explains. "But we've ended up with a situation where each city has its own traffic restrictions, which make it difficult to travel through Europe. In Europe, which has a large number of technical standards within a relatively small geographical area, that causes problems. It also stands in the way of achieving economies of scale.

"We need to get away from trying to make disparate schemes work together and come up with standardised technologies. The EU can help with standardisation of support and other measures such as freight charging. The EC has taken that up in its urban mobility Action Plan; the Commission's Framework Programmes 7 and 8 are very proactive here."

Despite what the FIA considers to be its overbearing focus on demand management, the EC is doing as much as is possible within the powers it has to stimulate urban and interurban mobility, Botman feels. But it is up to the regions to adapt, he says.

"The only way we can make that happen is to show them good examples of what's been done and what is possible. A lot of EC funding in transportation goes into the exchange of best practice but it's very much down to local authorities to take things forward."