Report claims transport ploicy is bad for environment and motrorist
March 3, 2008
A new report published by the Green Alliance and the Campaign for Better Transport claims that the method used by the authorities to decide whether to give transport projects the go-ahead is bad for the environment and bad for the motorist.
The Government assesses proposed transport schemes through a framework called New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) and the process of transport economics is currently being reviewed. A public consultation around the review closes on 31 March 2008.
The research by the two environment campaign groups, which was undertaken by Keith Buchan of MTRU, a transport planning consultancy, concluded that the appraisal framework of the Department for Transport:
- favours projects that increase carbon dioxide emissions, car use and motorists' fuel bills while penalising projects that reduce fuel use
- does not properly consider non-road building alternatives to encourage walking and cycling
- is biased against projects that encourage car drivers to switch to public transport, because tickets are not subject to VAT and public transport pays lower fuel duty than cars
- gives higher value to time savings, even if savings are too small for motorists to notice.
Commenting on the report, Stephen Joseph, the Executive Director of Campaign for Better Transport, said, "The way the Government looks at transport projects is flawed. The process doesn't work for the environment and doesn't help the motorist. The Government needs to invest in projects that give people real choices in how they travel while reducing carbon dioxide, protecting landscapes and strengthening communities, but it is instead giving the green light to projects that do the exact opposite."
Print this page