Reports:

Study of European best practice in the delivery of integrated transport: key findings

Chapter 1: Outcomes

We sought to gauge the effectiveness of integrated transport policy delivery in the UK against other EU countries by comparing performance against a range of measures. Analyses were undertaken to assess relative progress in achieving the desired outcomes of integrated transport policies. These desired outcomes have been previously defined by DETR^[1] and CFIT^[2] as including:

• reducing congestion on the roads without eroding economic competitiveness;
• improving road safety, particularly for children, pedestrians and cyclists;
• reducing the environmental impact of transport in terms of human health, the local environment and the global environment; and
• creating a more inclusive society with improved access for all to goods, services, and employment.

Congestion

The most recent comparison of delays caused by congestion showed that Britain has the worst congestion in Europe (see Figure below). Almost a quarter of the most well used links in the UK suffered delays lasting an hour or more whilst such delays were suffered on less than one in ten links in Germany and France. Several countries had no links at all with delays of an hour or more.

That study concluded that the UK's poor performance was a result of persistent under-investment^[3].

Although not a perfect measure, it is also possible to assess congestion by comparing distance travelled with road length^[4]. Even after allowing for the impact of differential levels of GDP, Britain's roads are among the most heavily used in Europe. Measured in terms of vehicle kilometres per kilometre of road, Britain has the second most intensely used roads in the EU, after Spain.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that British workers spend more time commuting each day than their European counterparts. This is despite having relatively high population densities, which ought to reduce distance to work and hence commuting time^[5]. The average British worker spends 46 minutes each day commuting - 10 minutes more each day than their French counterpart, and double the time spent commuting by Italian workers.

A central cause of these high congestion levels is that British people make more use of cars than any other European country, despite having below average car ownership. Almost nine out of ten motorised journeys (car, bus, motorbike) in the UK are by car, compared with an EU average of just over eight out of ten.

Road Safety

Road safety is a success story for the UK!

People in Britain are less likely to die on the roads than citizens of any other EU country, except Sweden. The UK has the lowest road death toll in the EU at 6 deaths per 100,000 population - less than half the levels of Italy or France.

We have the second lowest number of deaths when measured against total distances driven. On average, 8.1 people are killed on British roads for every billion kilometres driven, less than half the level of deaths in France.

This is a measure of the emphasis that successive Governments have placed on tackling this problem and shows what can be achieved through the use of well focussed targets. The critical element has been strong national political leadership, which has kept Britain at the forefront by adopting effective policies, such as those on seatbelts and drink driving, even in the face of strong initial opposition. Political leadership has allowed a productive partnership to develop between local and central government and the police that has been fundamental in delivering this critical outcome.

However we must not be complacent. Every year over 3,000 people die on British roads. Injury accident risk and exposure is also high compared to many European countries. There is therefore still a great deal to be done before our roads can ever be considered 'safe'. Furthermore, the aggregate statistics mask significant variations in the UK's performance between the modes. Measured by participation (deaths per billion passenger kilometres), British car occupants are the least likely to die in Europe, BUT pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are amongst the most at risk. Pedestrians and cyclists are more than twice as likely to be killed on UK roads than in Sweden or the Netherlands.

The Environment

Though it has been possible to provide some insights into the comparative performance of the UK in terms of emissions, it has proved impossible to benchmark against less tangible environmental outcomes such as noise pollution or severance.

The latest available comparative data on road transport emissions is 5 years old. It shows that the UK was a mid to high-level polluter, though at that time transport emissions were beginning to show signs of improvement. Transport emissions contribute greatly to pollution, and do not necessarily respect international boundaries. Therefore it is critical that accurate and comprehensive information is available to make benchmark comparisons. Renewed efforts need to be made at a European level to rectify this lack of consistent data collection.

However, given that Britain is the most car dependent country in Europe, there is an opportunity, through achieving modal shift towards more environmentally friendly modes - particularly walking and cycling -to make significant advances in terms of reducing pollution and increasing health benefits.

By comparison with our European counterparts, the UK has a fairly poor emission record because of our dependence on motorised transport and, particularly, the high car use. Comparison shows that the UK is the sixth highest producer of CO₂ per capita, however national estimates suggest that we could be the second highest CO₂ polluter after Luxembourg^[6].

The UK also produces the fourth highest volume of NOx despite having a relatively young car fleet (the UK average age is 6.1 years compared with the European average of over 7 years). This suggests that savings brought about by technological advances are being offset by high car use.

In 1997 the UK had the fourth lowest proportion of cars with catalytic converters fitted and the lowest of the industrialised European countries. Again this is surprising given the relatively young age of the fleet, though the situation may have changed since 1997.

Only having access to comparative data on emissions severely limits what can be deduced about the environmental impacts of transport, though traffic levels can be used as a proxy for some environmental impacts (for example severance).

An indication of the urgent need to develop better and more co-ordinated methods of measuring other environmental impacts is shown by the fact that nearly half the UK wetlands (the highest in Europe) and a third of special bird areas (fifth highest in Europe) are within 5 kilometres of major road or rail infrastructure. It could be inferred that the impact of transport on such habitats is amongst the worst in the EU^[7]. Alternatively, it could just be that we are more rigorous in identifying and designating such sites. Without suitable data, the true picture will not emerge and there is a real danger that important transport impacts that could have a critical effect on quality of life could be misunderstood or not recognised.

Social Exclusions

Social exclusion is more influenced by accessibility to goods and services than by mobility per se. However, most existing indicators relate to mobility (car ownership, driving licences held, distance travelled etc) and hence it has proved extremely difficult to benchmark social exclusion across the EU. Further there is little common understanding of what social exclusion is and how it might be measured. Some interesting proxy indicators do exist and are shown below. However, in order for the useful exchange of information and ideas about how to tackle the problems of transport related social exclusion (and more helpfully, to understand how transport systems can be developed to improve social inclusion), a great deal more effort needs to be directed towards agreeing common definitions and developing methods of quantifying the issues. CfIT believes this is an urgent priority and is working to develop an insight into the links between transport and social exclusion.

However, it is certain that Britain's high public transport fares, particularly bus fares, have a disproportionate effect on the less well off. Research in the UK shows that the poor and the socially excluded spend more on buses than on rail with, for example, the poorest pensioner groups spend between two and six times more on buses than on rail^[8]. For further information on the impact of transport costs in rural areas, see CfIT's Rural Transport report.

The Commission is also carrying out an in depth study of public subsidy for the bus industry, which has placed examining the issue of Social Exclusion as one of its three key priorities. That study will report early in 2002.

Households in the UK spend on average 15% of total expenditure on transport, the third highest in the EU. Though travel volumes and the real cost of travel have increased (disposable income has risen even faster), the proportion of expenditure on transport is little changed since the mid-eighties. There is no discernible trend across the other countries, however, to allow reliable conclusions to be drawn. It is interesting to note, though, that in Italy only 11% of household expenditure is on transport while there is a relatively high volume of travel, implying that travel costs are lower than in other countries.

Related Health Issues

The serious absence of data does not allow us to make a proper comparison of the health impacts of transport across Europe. However the relatively low percentage of journeys in the UK by foot or bike and the higher car dependency would indicate that there is cause for concern.

For example, in the 10 years to the mid 1990s, the number of overweight boys in England nearly doubled to 9% while the percentage of girls rose to 13%^[9]. In almost the same time period, about 400,000 fewer children walked to school, and cycling numbers fell from 300,000 to 100,000^[10]. The link between the two is unmistakable.

---

1: Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan, DETR, July 2000.
2: European Best Practice in Transport - Benchmarking, CfIT, August 2000.
3: ECIS, The State of European Infrastructure, Rotterdam 1996.
4: Other factors important to the measure of congestion include road quality, road design and road management.
5: Long commuting duration may also be effected by the likelihood of encountering traffic congestion en route, urban dispersal, cultural and lifestyle factors and high car dependence.
6: Based on Eurostat and national estimates from ETC-AE.
7: European Environment Agency, Statistics for the Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism, Indicators on Transport and the Environment Integration in the EU(TERM), 2000.
8: United Kingdom Transport Policy 1991-2001. Paper delivered to the Beesley Lectures on Regulation, 2nd September 2001, Stephen Glaister, The Royal Society of Arts.
9: Prevalence and trends in overweight and obesity in three cross sectional studies of British Children 1974-94, Chinn and Rhona January 2001, King's College.
10: DTLR National Travel survey 1997/1999.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]