Transcript Slide 1
The ‘Low Carbon Road Transport Challenge’ “Getting the genie back in the bottle” Jillian Anable, UKERC and The Centre for Transport Policy, The Robert Gordon University Paige Mitchell, The Slower Speeds Initiative Russell Layberry, UKERC and The Environmental Change Institute, The University of Oxford The perfect policy? Guaranteed carbon reduction Significant carbon reduction Other significant benefits (e.g. safety) Equitable Can be implemented now Cost effective Maximises efficiency in the system Locks in the benefits of other policies Politically deliverable The UK Climate Change Programme 6.8 MtC savings from the transport sector by 2010 Total emissions from this sector still way above 1990 levels UK Climate Change Programme: Transport policies UK Climate Change Programme - Carbon savings by 2010 from different transport policies Fuel Duty Escalator (1993-1999) 1.9 MtC Voluntary Agreement (1997-2010) 2.4 MtC Sustainable distribution (in Scotland) 0.1 MtC ? Other polices (1999-2010) 0.8 MtC ? RTFO (2008 - 2010) 1.6 MtC 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 UK Climate Change Programme: Transport policies + ? UK Climate Change Programme - Carbon savings by 2010 from different transport policies ? 1.9 MtC Fuel Duty Escalator (1993-1999) 1.9 MtC Voluntary Agreement (1997-2010) 2.4 MtC Sustainable distribution (in Scotland) 0.1 MtC Other polices (1999-2010) 0.8 MtC RTFO (2008 - 2010) 1.6 MtC 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Speed Reduction and Enforcement The perfect policy? Guaranteed carbon reduction Significant carbon reduction Other significant benefits (e.g. safety) Equitable Can be implemented now Cost effective Maximises efficiency in the system Locks in the benefits of other policies Politically deliverable The Low Carbon Road Transport Challenge Entry Two: A model of carbon emissions savings by 2010 from: (i) enforcing the current top 70 mph speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways for all 4-wheeled vehicles AND (ii) reducing this to 60 mph Guaranteed carbon savings Diesel Euro II cars (1.4 – 2l) emit 14% less CO2 at 70mph than at 80mph 350 Petrol Euro II 1.4 - 2.0 l g CO2 per km 300 Petrol Euro II > 2.0 l 250 200 Diesel Euro II <2.0 l 150 Diesel Euro II >2.0 l 100 40 mph 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 The potential to save carbon 4-wheeled vehicles on 70 mph roads = 41% road transport CO2 & 8% of all CO2 4 wheeled vehicles on 70mph roads: 13.2 MtC (8%) Ca. 50% of cars exceed the speed limit on motorways Total road transport: 33 MtC (21%) All UK emissions: 156.1 MtC Model assumptions Motorways and dual carriageways - all 4wheeled vehicles Traffic growth figures based on NTM midpoint projections for interurban roads to 2010 No knock-on savings in demand or car purchasing Average emissions coefficients reflecting: (i) fleet technology mix for each year (ii) relevant speed distribution (2004 data) All distance previously driven above 70mph or 60mph redistributed to highest remaining band Significant carbon savings 2.8 - 5.4% reduction in carbon emissions from the transport sector in 2010. Per Annum carbon savings (MtC) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Cumulative savings in 2010 70mph enforced 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 4.87 60mph enforced 1.81 1.84 1.88 1.91 1.94 9.38 UK Climate Change Programme: Transport policies + speed limit UK Climate Change Programme - Carbon savings by 2010 from different transport policies Speed limit enforcement (60mph) (1 Mtc) 1.9 MtC Equals 15-29% of the total savings expected from the transport sector by 2010 Fuel Duty Escalator (1993-1999) 1.9 MtC Voluntary Agreement (1997-2010) Sustainable distribution (in Scotland) 2.4 MtC 0.1 MtC Other polices (1999-2010) 0.8 MtC RTFO (2008 - 2010) 1.6 MtC 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Additional carbon savings 1. Reduction in traffic growth 2. Maximising capacity by improving traffic flow 3. Rationalising car design Reduction in traffic growth Additional CO2 reductions under a scenario of ‘moderate’ traffic restraint: 3% (70 mph) – 7% (60 mph) Effect of demand restraint scenarios on emissions reduction from speed management (2010) (cars & taxis only) 7 6 D-Carriageways Diesel cars 5 MtC 4 D-Carriageways Petrol cars 3 Motorways Diesel cars 2 1 Motorways Petrol cars 0 BAU 70 No demand reduction 70 moderate reduction 70 maximum reduction 60 No reduction 60 moderate reduction 60 maximum reduction Improved traffic flow Highway capacity is a function of speed Traffic ‘smoothing’ (e.g. M25) Fewer crashes and disruption Effect on driving style - combine with ecodriving and in car guidance systems Renders motorway widening schemes unnecessary? Rationalising car design Capping speed limits = a system boundary Safer roads - set the context for lighter, less powerful and more efficient vehicles Speed enforcement - encourage voluntary uptake of speed limiters Average top speed of best performing models is 102mph Other benefits Early win / certainty – no technological innovation required Why the urgency? CO2 concentrations and average temperature change ‘Safe’ concentration has already been exceeded Concentration rising by 2ppmv per year Stabilisation targets and temperature rise: Stabilisation level Temperature change to 2100 oC 400ppm 1.2 – 2.8 450ppm 1.3 – 3.0 550ppm 1.5 – 3.6 Other benefits Early win / certainty – no technological innovation required Safety benefits – 60mph limit would halve deaths on motorways Cost effectiveness – immediate carbon savings are cheaper = net benefit to society Equity – reduce the differential between the fast and the slow, the rich and the poor Public Acceptability Least intrusive measure Egalitarian Straightforward Direct benefits – fuel savings and operating costs Time penalties (if any) no worse than other measures Improved journey reliability M25 trials – 68% of drivers happy The perfect policy? Guaranteed carbon reduction Significant carbon reduction Other significant benefits (e.g. safety) Equitable Can be implemented now Cost effective Maximises efficiency in the system Locks in the benefits of other policies Politically deliverable A systems approach REDUCE SPEED Reduce CO2 Rationalise Car Market Reduce CASUALTIES Reduce Traffic Demand Improve Traffic Flow Conclusions NO case for not enforcing 70mph 60 mph would bring significant benefits (29% of Too good to ignore Need a comprehensive review of the options What’s your excuse?