1. Travel in the Twenty-First Century: Peak Car and beyond David Metz Centre for Transport Studies University College London

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

10. Implications of National Travel Survey Evaluation of cumulative transport investment Benefit taken in long run as access, opportunities, choices – not time saving Time savings are short run – observable but not observed Average distance travelled has stabilised Travel demand now driven by demographics, not income

11. Problems with investment appraisal based on travel time savings Infrastructure investments are long-lived, DCF to 60 years Long run time savings are notional, not real Disregards –Land use change and value enhancement –Spatial and socio-economic distribution of benefits Biases –against urban rail –in favour of inter-urban road civil engineering –against digital technologies

12. Reconsider economic appraisal of transport investments Based on findings of open-minded evaluation of completed schemes Recognise changes in land use and value Evidence-based approach avoids double counting Economic framework: spatial economics, urban economics Align economic and business/financial cases Policy implication: link transport investment to development to capture benefits

14. 14

15. Bournemouth car traffic 15

16. Why has per capita travel ceased to grow? Urban population growth Young less interested in cars Enough daily travel to meet our needs Technological constraints on faster travel Changes in company car taxation in UK 16

17. Why has per capita travel growth ceased? Urbanisation Changes in company car taxation in UK Younger people less interested in cars Demand saturation Technological constraints 17

18. Access to GPs 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. Population growth

22. London population growth 22

23. Car traffic and use in London 23

24. London share of trips 24

25. 25

26. Peak Car in the Big City Key policies –Cap road capacity –Invest in rail Declining car use associated with economic, cultural and social success Increasing population density -> agglomeration Mitigates greenhouse gas emissions 26

27. Options for smaller cities and larger towns Emulate Big City model: invest in rail or BRT Accommodate the car – traditional approach ‘Smarter Travel’ – promote bikes, walking, bus use Age-Friendly Cities Inclusive Design Brighton: ‘least car dependent city outside London’ 27

28. Commuting by mode of travel (%) Bournemouth Car: 67 Bike 4.2 PT 7.4 Walk 9.5 Source: Centre for Cities Brighton Car 44 Bike 4.6 PT 21 Walk 17 28

29. Conclusions: in what kind of a place do we want to live? Increasing prosperity no longer associated with growing car use Cars facilitate mobility but interfere with social engagement Can’t build our way out of congestion Sticks and carrots: constraints on car use plus alternative modes 29

30. Conclusions: daily travel Evidence from NTS –No time savings in long run –No increase in travel per capita since mid-1990s Analytical framework of conventional appraisal and forecasting inconsistent with NTS and Peak Car evidence. Reconsider framework Constrain models to hold travel time constant Investment strategies questionable –Too little urban rail –Too much inter-urban road civil engineering –Too little investment in digital technologies 30

31. Conclusions: trends Long term: invariant daily average travel time New trends –No growth of daily distance travelled –No increase in speed –Demand saturation for many daily needs (but not housing) –Population growth, not income growth, main driver of demand –Peak Car in Big City – helpful for reducing greenhouse gas emissions Travel in the twenty-first century unlike twentieth 31

32. www.peakcar.org 32