Vox populi
I don’t think it looked quite like this…
A few weeks ago I reported on the conclusions of last year’s citizens’ assembly on aviation; and specifically their recommendation of a frequent fliers’ levy.
Well, I know what you’ve been thinking ever since:
“Never mind planes, Thomas, what did they have to say about surface transport?”
Well, here’s the answer.
Citizens’ Assemblies: a reminder
First a quick reminder of what citizens’ assemblies are, and how they work. Feel free to skip this paragraph if it’s still fresh in your mind.
Citizens’ assemblies are ‘juries’ of about 100 people assembled to resolve knotty policy problems. They’ve been successfully used in Ireland on abortion and in France on climate change. The idea is that on topics where people feel strongly and where there are no obvious answers (either because of complexity or strongly-held ethical beliefs), a representative cross-section of the people will (when given sufficient time to deliberate) work together to reach the optimal acceptable compromise.
Yes, some people won’t be entirely happy with the outcomes, but the assembly will land on the sweet spot where most people are happy. That’s the hope, anyway.
Surface transport: what the people think
Last year’s British citizens’ assembly was created to come up with recommendations on climate change.
It had none of the fanfair of the French version (where Macron was genuinely desperate for answers, given his early attempts to deal with climate change through fuel tax increases had led to Yellow Vest protestors trashing the Champs-Élysées) and was comprehensively overshadowed by Covid.
Nonetheless, the assembly met and it deliberated. So what did it think?
Well, in terms of the outcomes they wanted to achieve, they recommended:
1) A ban on the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2030–2035;
2) A reduction in the amount we use cars by an average of 2–5% per decade;
3) Improvements to public transport
In terms of specific policy proposals, the assembly was focused on decarbonisation of vehicles: trains, buses and cars. Many of the proposals in the Government’s decarbonisation strategy will be popular; with the move to electric welcomed.
Interestingly, the idea of business parking levies (as tried in Nottingham) was roundly rejected. I’ve always thought this was a policy that made a lot of sense but the assembly disliked it. They raised issues of fairness (as businesses that have invested in sites with parking would be penalised), a fear that businesses would pass on the cost to employees and a concern that it might disincentivise employment. Reducing car parking spaces was also massively unpopular.
Instead, the most popular solutions were implementing localised road closures and changing planning regulations to minimise the need for travel. In effect, the ‘15 minute city’ concept that I probably need to do a post about sometime soon.
However, more local authority support for car clubs and road user pricing were also strongly supported.
There was overwhelming support for making public transport cheaper (even at more cost to the taxpayer) and very strong support for the Government taking public transport back under state control; and using that control to invest in new routes and more frequent services.
As in France, the option of lowering the speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways was roundly rejected!
Some Carrot - less stick
In general (and this won’t surprise you), the assembly preferred carrots to sticks.
They didn’t want to see restrictions on travel but instead wanted a real focus on electrifying the car, bus and train fleet as quickly as possible - while making public transport better and cheaper.
The majority of the ‘stick’ solutions (like lowering the speed limit, workplace parking levies or reducing car parking) were roundly rejected.
The list below shows the 15 policies supported by a majority of participants:
It’s interesting to note just how aligned these are with stated Government policy. The phraseology is different, but I would say that the Government is currently focused on the top five (obviously, it’s not yet obvious how public transport will become cheaper; but it’s stated as an intent) while many of the others in the top 15 are also live policy areas right now. These include investing in cycle facilities, investment to make buses faster and more reliable, on-demand buses and closing roads to cars.
The two big gaps are currently “localisation” (i.e. changing planning regulations to enable car-free housing) and charging to use the roads. Given we now know these have majority support, it’s time to focus on getting them onto the agenda.
The reality is that these are a package and climate adaption of surface transport cannot work if houses are still built round an assumption of two cars on the driveway, and if there is no financial incentive to switch away from congested roads.
Once again, it call comes back to road-pricing…
