Transport part 1- Reducing dependency on cars

Fundamental problem

In the UK, in common with many other parts of the developed (and, increasingly, developing) world, we are too dependent on cars for transport, resulting in pollution and congestion and non-sustainable consumption of resources.  This raises the question, how do we reduce our dependency on cars and move towards a more balanced and sustainable transport system?  My feelings on this issue are rather at odds with the conventional ways of thinking.

I am in the rare position of having a strong environmental/climate change background, and being a non-driver (unable to drive at all due to visual impairment) and often lamenting the lack of good alternatives in our car-dependent society, but at the same time sharing many tendencies of car enthusiasts (e.g. I often enjoy being taken for a ride as a passenger, and watching Top Gear and Formula One racing), so I think, or at least hope, that I should be good at seeing both sides' points of view on these issues.

The advantages of cars

The main advantages of cars are social and recreational, rather than simply getting from A to B.  They are associated with personal freedom and convenience, and the ability to go where you want, when you want, for both drivers and their passengers.  They are particularly useful for people living in areas with inadequate public transport, most especially rural communities, and for some people with mobility problems.  Spontaneous car trips contribute heavily to tourism and the custom received by recreational outlets, again especially in rural areas.  Many also derive some enjoyment from the physical process of driving and/or being driven as a passenger, making travelling from A to B a source of enjoyment in itself, rather than a chore.  Car enthusiasts are provided with a hobby and Top Gear remains one of the most successful TV programmes in the world.

The process of getting from A to B can, in itself, be achieved more efficiently given a sufficiently reliable public transport system, particularly in urban areas, and by walking and cycling over short distances, so I don't subscribe to the "Cars are useful primarily for getting from A to B" philosophy.

The disadvantages of cars

Well-established disadvantages include the issue that they contribute heavily to fossil fuel consumption and pollution of the environment, increase noise levels, and can potentially be lethal, especially when they get into the wrong hands.  However, the main reason why the disadvantages of cars often outweigh the plus points these days is because we have become over-dependent on them.  Many of us view cars as a necessity rather than as a luxury, and there are many people who get no reward from the physical process of driving, and find it stressful and would much rather not drive, but feel that they have to.  Becoming too dependent on cars has resulted in car use escalating at the expense of alternative methods of transport and has resulted in high levels of traffic congestion, which accentuate many of the disadvantages and negate many of the advantages of the private car.  In the UK, this can partly be blamed on poor planning policies in the 1950s/60s/70s when we closed down many of the railways in preparation for becoming a car-based society.  Those who have disabilities that prevent them from driving legally, or don't have the confidence, are often disadvantaged because of the lack of reliable alternatives to the car in our car-based society.

Biased cost-benefit analysis

Many academic studies look at methods of transport only in terms of the "means to an end" benefits of getting from A to B, and overlook their social and recreational advantages.  Most environmental groups are aware of this and advocate putting greater emphasis on the social and recreational benefits of walking, cycling and taking public transport, and I have seen a few Green Party manifestos talking of "factoring in the 'true' social and environmental costs of driving".  They argue that promoting cycling more will be beneficial to society even if it results in a small increase in fatalities.  Up to this point, I am completely with them.

However, I am used to the same groups of people arguing that the social and recreational benefits of cars and driving should be ignored, or even considered as a negative factor.  This can stem from the idea that if an activity is frowned upon, then it is particularly bad if people are deriving enjoyment from it, or the idea that since we want people to use their cars less, it will complicate our argument if we then factor benefits of cars into consideration.  I recall reading one academic study which misleadingly expressed the social/recreational pros and cons of driving as one motorist's personal benefits versus the cumulative negative impacts of all of the cars on the roads.  It is understandable, but leads to considerable anti-car bias, and thereby, promotes policies that are more anti-car than pro-environment, pro-safety or pro-walking/cycling/public transport.

Meanwhile, the work-related benefits of driving are generally overstated, because of the misconception that everything relating to work is essential, for we all need to work (up to a point).  A significant amount of work-related driving (though not all of it) could easily be avoided at little or no cost to anybody, such as through car-share schemes, public transport and teleworking arranagements.

My recommended approach

I believe that we need to go for much the opposite approach, taking steps to reduce our over-dependency on cars, and pushing us towards a culture where cars are primarily viewed as a luxury, rather than a necessity, with public transport being the default for longer-range "A to B" journeys and walking and cycling for shorter journeys, and cars being primarily used for recreational journeys.  Many German towns and cities have managed to get close to this model, but the key is that it requires an integrated public transport system, and good facilities for walking and cycling, and good advertising to raise public awareness of the facilities.  Some work-related car journeys can be cut by car-sharing, use of minibuses, and teleworking arrangements, and we could also do with transporting a higher percentage of our freight by rail.

Another advantage of making car use more of a luxury and more recreation-based is that traffic congestion will end up playing more of a limiting role- if we use cars too much, congestion increases, making driving less enjoyable, resulting in less car use, and less congestion, and we end up with a self-sustaining equilibrium which prevents our roads from becoming excessively congested.  When we are dependent on cars for transport, this equilibrium is harder to achieve as many people feel that they "have" to keep on driving even when the roads become gridlocked.

There will be cultural barriers to this, and some education and advertising will be needed.  One problem that we will have in the UK is that even if we do achieve an integrated public transport system, it may be difficult to encourage the public to widely use it, because of the negative image that public transport currently suffers from.  Another issue is the lazy tendency of some to drive around the corner to the local shops when they could walk there in just 5-10 minutes- again, addressing this will require a cultural shift, but that cultural shift won't be achieved by clamping down against the recreational side of driving.

Thus, when it comes to the "congestion" side of driving, I think that more use of the "carrot", rather than the "stick", is advisable, as the "sticks" have a habit of particularly hitting the aspects of driving that are the most beneficial to society, while the "carrots" are often more likely to succeed in reducing the negatives.  

This may not be the case with the "pollution" side, however, where we may need more tax-based incentivising (both for drivers and car companies) to provide "carrots" to encourage use of more efficient fuels, while implementing "sticks" to penalise those who produce and drive around in gas-guzzlers.  A significant problem in the UK in recent years has been the move towards diesel rather than unleaded petrol, which has been misleadingly presented as saving a lot more on pollution than it actually does, and as a result traffic pollution levels have not fallen as far as expected.  However, we must still be careful not to implement "sticks" that heavily neutralise many of the benefits that cars provide to society.