UK government's Transport decarbonisation plan

[whole diary]

[stuving]

Following the Climate Change Committee's various reports, and the government's own plan to have a plan, the actual "getting from here to 2050" plan is published today. Or at least that is announced in a written answer in Parliament, with comments from those having embargoed access, but the actual document doesn't seem to be out yet.

There are a number of other documents to be published today (or which will have been), including:

As a major step towards that, alongside the plan we have published a consultation on phasing out the sale of all new non-zero emission heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) by 2040, demonstrating our commitment to tackle the second largest source of domestic transport carbon emissions and furthering our ambition to decarbonise UK^▸ (United Kingdom) roads.

This comes with a green paper, which will set out options for a new regulatory framework requiring vehicle manufacturers to improve the efficiency of new road vehicles. This will allow us to meet our phase out ambitions whilst creating new jobs for the automotive sector and delivering certainty to drivers.

To underpin our petrol and diesel phase out dates and help achieve them, we are also publishing a 2035 delivery plan today. This plan brings together all of our committed funding streams and measures for decarbonising cars and vans, from across government, into a single document. It outlines the key timelines, milestones and how we will monitor progress towards our commitment to deliver mass ownership of zero emission cars and vans.

Leading by example, our decarbonisation plan will increase the level of ambition for the whole central government fleet, moving the target date for the 40,000-vehicle fleet to be fully zero emission forward to 2027.

Today we are also publishing the government’s response to the electric vehicle smart charging consultation. The response commits to laying legislation later this year to ensure that all private EV chargepoints meet smart charging standards. The transition to EVs is central to government’s net zero commitment but will also increase demand on the electricity system. Smart charging can help mitigate these impacts. This legislation will play an important role in driving the uptake of smart technology, which can save consumers money on their energy bills.

We also intend to tackle the challenges of decarbonising the aviation and maritime sectors head on. Today, we are also launching a Jet Zero consultation that commits the aviation sector to a net zero emissions target by 2050 and sets out our approach and principles to achieve this. The consultation focuses on the rapid development of technologies in a way that maintains the benefits of air travel and maximises the opportunities that decarbonisation can bring for the UK.

The decarbonisation plan sets out further commitments for our maritime sector, establishing our ‘course to zero’, consulting on how we get more ships plugging in to our decarbonised grid, exploring how we phase out emissions from vessels, and considering how we take advantage of the UK’s strengths in the maritime sector to support growth in green technology and shipbuilding.

The government is also publishing its rail environment policy statement, which will set the direction for the rail industry on environment issues and inform the forthcoming sustainable rail strategy. The document will look at traction decarbonisation, air quality, decarbonising the rail estate and a range of other environmental-related issues on the railway, including biodiversity and waste.

This suite of announcements marks a major leap forward in delivering ambitions to decarbonise transport and we are the first country in the world to do this, taking a firm leadership position as we host COP26 later this year.

The plan is ambitious, consumer friendly and world leading. It will create economic growth, new industries and jobs and help us Build Back Better and Greener.

[ellendune]

I note that the road haulage industry is sceptical that HGV's particularly large HGV's can be made fossil fuel free by 2040.  I note that these are mainly used on longer distance routes. 

I think that decarbonisation of freight probably needs a redesign of the whole logistics sector.  Changes in economics should drive this either by pure market economics or where this will not achieve the necessary outcome, by tax incentives (stick or carrot).   

Is there an opportunity for rail to have a greater role in trunk transport?

[broadgage]

I would certainly hope that a lot more freight could be transported by rail, but elsewhere on these forums several respected members have cast doubts as to the viability of this.

In urban areas I would hope for more trolleybuses and hope that the infrastructure could be used also by electric trucks.
IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) we need as a matter of urgency a national standard for interoperability of trolley buses AND FREIGHT vehicles. This needs action BEFORE every local authority develops its own bespoke type.

In remote rural areas, I would hope for more buses, preferably electric.

And all this electric transport is a bit pointless unless the great majority of our electricity is produced renewably. For the foreseeable future we will probably need some natural gas for electricity production, but the target should be to reduce gas burning and to increase renewables.

How many bus shelters are there ? and what proportion of these are roofed with PV modules.
How many station canopies or waiting shelters are there ? and what proportion are fitted with PV modules.

How many stations in windy locations have wind turbines ? I know of only one.

[stuving]

The plan itself has now appeared on line. The CCC have responded it too, and much more positively than I expected.

[stuving]

The plan itself has now appeared on line. The CCC have responded it too, and much more positively than I expected.

Having looked through (some of) the 220 pages of this very big brochure, I'm not that impressed. As a plan, it's more a sketch than a real route map; its size is due to all the pictures, and the other kind of figures are pretty scarce. And quite a lot of the actions planned are making a further plan to do something - so still plans to have plans.

Much of the critical comment has been about it being written by Pollyanna Consultants LLP. The accusation is that the government is being unrealistic in saying new technologies will save us from having to make big sacrifices. But that can be rebutted by pointing out that the alternative is incompatible with democracy - "vote for us and we'll reduce your material standard of living by about 20%" would be more of a suicide note (at any length) than anything Michael Foot managed. The screaming and shouting in today's European Commission meeting, to be followed by more of the same as the "fit for 55" programme does the rounds, demonstrates the same conflict.

[broadgage]

I largely agree, firstly that the report contains largely not plans for actual actions, but plans for more studies, research, consultations and reviews.

And also that significant change will affect people, especially those who drive or fly a lot, real action will require some drastic changes that are likely to be unacceptable in a democracy.

There seems to be a fairly general view that trading carbon emissions, offsetting carbon emissions and yet to be developed technology will allow life to carry on as normal. It wont.

[Reading General]

Yes, largely the plan is based around the hope that this island will be able to continue moving around in the same way as we do now, except that batteries replace combustion engines. I believe this will be unachievable in urban areas and clearly larger investment is needed in public transport, cycling and walking, all three of which compliment each other. We are so bloody stubborn in the U.K. about our personal, class based show of wealth transport that we are prepared to completely ignore what other countries in the world are doing to change to ways of moving about that we like to mock as being out of date. Can’t go back to trams or trolleybuses, it’s seen as resigning, we must wait for the latest and best, those other things are out of date. When what’s really out of date is the internal combustion engine, by about 30 years.

[stuving]

Yes, largely the plan is based around the hope that this island will be able to continue moving around in the same way as we do now, except that batteries replace combustion engines. I believe this will be unachievable in urban areas and clearly larger investment is needed in public transport, cycling and walking, all three of which compliment each other. We are so bloody stubborn in the U.K. about our personal, class based show of wealth transport that we are prepared to completely ignore what other countries in the world are doing to change to ways of moving about that we like to mock as being out of date. Can’t go back to trams or trolleybuses, it’s seen as resigning, we must wait for the latest and best, those other things are out of date. When what’s really out of date is the internal combustion engine, by about 30 years.

I'm not sure why you say that - there are numerous places where public transport is mentioned, such as:

Priority 1: Accelerating modal shift to public and active transport

Increasing the share of journeys taken by cycling and walking does not rely on any technological breakthrough, delivers a host of co-benefits and is fundamental to any good local transport plan. With better quality infrastructure through high quality road design, dedicated routes, and networks, and enabling people to access cycles, people will feel safer and more confident walking and cycling for more and more short journeys.

A cohesive, integrated, and affordable net zero public transport network, designed for the needs of the passenger, will empower users to make sustainable end-to-end journeys and enable inclusive mobility. Zero emission buses will link communities with each other, town centres and the wider transport network. A modern, net zero rail network will connect the country and regions, serving commuters, holiday-makers and business travellers alike with a faster, cleaner, and more reliable rail service fair for all. We must make buses and trains better value and more competitively priced. Starting with bus fares outside London we want simpler, cheaper flat fares that you can pay with a contactless card, with daily and weekly price capping across operators. Affordable fares and season ticket caps will continue to be protected on the railways.

Where the car remains attractive for longer journeys, it will face competition from high-speed decarbonised rail and zero emission coaches offering affordable alternatives.

But you are right that, while the clear advantage of cars in rural areas and some longer journeys is mentioned more than once, the need for more and better public transport is not linked to urban areas. And that despite the evident need for less traffic to make space for more cycling etc. Perhaps the missing link is in the paragraphs following the above quote:

Embracing new ways of sustainable travel, such as e-cycles and other emerging technologies, will create opportunities for more people to travel this way and foster new alternatives for journeys too time consuming, or too long, to previously walk or cycle. Innovation is driving this change fast, with new operating models transforming traditional transport services.

What's that about - ideas, anyone?

[stuving]

There's a summary of commitments at the start of the document, in which this is the railways section:

Decarbonising our railways

We will deliver a net zero railway network by 2050, with sustained carbon reductions in rail along the way. Our ambition is to remove all diesel-only trains (passenger and freight) from the network by 2040

We will deliver an ambitious, sustainable, and cost-effective programme of electrification guided by Network Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy

We are supporting the development of battery and hydrogen trains and will deploy them on the network as we decarbonise. We will also use technology to clean up diesel trains until they can be removed altogether

We are building extra capacity on our rail network to meet growing passenger and freight demand and support significant shifts from road and air to rail

We will work with industry to modernise fares ticketing and retail to encourage a shift to rail and cleaner and greener transport journeys

We will improve rail journey connectivity with walking, cycling and other modes of transport

We will introduce a rail freight growth target

We will incentivise the early take up of low carbon traction for rail freight 

[Reading General]

I'm not sure why you say that - there are numerous places where public transport is mentioned, such as:

Priority 1: Accelerating modal shift to public and active transport

Increasing the share of journeys taken by cycling and walking does not rely on any technological breakthrough, delivers a host of co-benefits and is fundamental to any good local transport plan. With better quality infrastructure through high quality road design, dedicated routes, and networks, and enabling people to access cycles, people will feel safer and more confident walking and cycling for more and more short journeys.

A cohesive, integrated, and affordable net zero public transport network, designed for the needs of the passenger, will empower users to make sustainable end-to-end journeys and enable inclusive mobility. Zero emission buses will link communities with each other, town centres and the wider transport network. A modern, net zero rail network will connect the country and regions, serving commuters, holiday-makers and business travellers alike with a faster, cleaner, and more reliable rail service fair for all. We must make buses and trains better value and more competitively priced. Starting with bus fares outside London we want simpler, cheaper flat fares that you can pay with a contactless card, with daily and weekly price capping across operators. Affordable fares and season ticket caps will continue to be protected on the railways.

Where the car remains attractive for longer journeys, it will face competition from high-speed decarbonised rail and zero emission coaches offering affordable alternatives.

But you are right that, while the clear advantage of cars in rural areas and some longer journeys is mentioned more than once, the need for more and better public transport is not linked to urban areas. And that despite the evident need for less traffic to make space for more cycling etc. Perhaps the missing link is in the paragraphs following the above quote:

Embracing new ways of sustainable travel, such as e-cycles and other emerging technologies, will create opportunities for more people to travel this way and foster new alternatives for journeys too time consuming, or too long, to previously walk or cycle. Innovation is driving this change fast, with new operating models transforming traditional transport services.

What's that about - ideas, anyone?

Public transport is always mentioned in plans like this, in the same method it would be in a local council plan. It’s mentioned in a way that is suggested that it won’t be the individual reading the piece that will change what they do. It’s mentioned in a way that suggests these other options might be possible for you but others will do the changing, you can carry on as before.

As far as I’m concerned, traffic is big problem as well as pollution. Vehicles racing past on dual carriageways or queuing along urban roads is still at the detriment of the other dominant three forms of ways of getting about. If you really want modal shift the other options need far more concentration than the private automobile. New technology is not needed to change, we have had the technology required for decades, we just need the will to change for the benefit of the generations of young people now and those beyond us. Something that no government report would ever be willing to admit

[broadgage]

Embracing new ways of sustainable travel, such as e-cycles and other emerging technologies, will create opportunities for more people to travel this way and foster new alternatives for journeys too time consuming, or too long, to previously walk or cycle. Innovation is driving this change fast, with new operating models transforming traditional transport services.

What's that about - ideas, anyone?

The only RECENT emerging technology that I have observed has been E-scooters.
And the reaction of TPTB^▸ (The Powers That Be) has been how to restrict this newish and greenish technology, rather than how to encourage wider use.

"Ban them"
"If we cant ban them then at least restrict use to only hired machines"
"Require a car driving licence to operate an E-scooter"
"ban use on pavements"
"Ban use on roads"
"Treat as motor vehicles, with serious penalties for use after drinking"

[grahame]

Yes, largely the plan is based around the hope that this island will be able to continue moving around in the same way as we do now, except that batteries replace combustion engines. I believe this will be unachievable in urban areas and clearly larger investment is needed in public transport, cycling and walking, all three of which compliment each other. We are so bloody stubborn in the U.K. about our personal, class based show of wealth transport that we are prepared to completely ignore what other countries in the world are doing to change to ways of moving about that we like to mock as being out of date. Can’t go back to trams or trolleybuses, it’s seen as resigning, we must wait for the latest and best, those other things are out of date. When what’s really out of date is the internal combustion engine, by about 30 years.

I'm not sure why you say that - there are numerous places where public transport is mentioned, such as:

I am going to suggest that most UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Jo(e) Publics wants to keep moving around in the way that (s)he has done for the last fifty years, largely with private vehicles, but perhaps with fossil fuels replaced by electricity that comes from the magic "sustainable" tree that provides an endless supply at no cost to the environment.  The utter convenience of having a private powered vehicle at your home, which you can use to ...
* go just about anywhere
* at a speed significantly in excess of anything self powered
* at any time you wish
* at an affordable price
* taking significant goods and chattels with you
* without having to mix with people not in your circle
... is attractive and hard to argue against.

   

[grahame]

From The Guardian

Britain’s £27bn roadbuilding strategy will have to be redrawn to take account of environmental commitments, the government has
admitted, in a victory for campaigners who sought a judicial review.

The government’s transport decarbonisation plan, published on Wednesday, pledged to review the national networks national policy statement, which outlined a strategy of major spending on roads.

[snip]

The pledge means that the Department for Transport will abandon its legal defence in one of the two cases brought by the Transport Action Network (Tan). The campaigners are likely to be awarded costs.

However, the decarbonisation plan still suggests that the government will continue large-scale road building, on the assumption that future vehicles will be electric or low-emission.

In a foreword to the plan, Shapps stated: “Our major transport infrastructure programmes were designed before the pandemic. We want to understand how changing patterns of work, shopping and business travel might affect them.

“As new demand patterns become clearer, we will also review the national policy statement which sets out the government’s policies on the national road network. Our ambitious roads programme reflects – and will continue to reflect – that in any imaginable circumstances, the clear majority of longer journeys, passenger, and freight, will be made by road; and that rural, remote areas will always depend more heavily on roads.”

The road strategy was written in 2014, before the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)’s legal commitment to net-zero and its latest carbon budget. The plan said that “it is right that we review it in the light of these developments, and update forecasts on which it is based to reflect more recent, post-pandemic conditions, once they are known.”

Chris Todd, director of Tan, said the promised review was a step in the right direction but expressed concern that action would be more important than words: “It vindicates our two legal challenges of Grants Shapps’s previous refusals to re-examine this outdated roads policy in the past 12 months. However, it won’t necessarily deliver the change needed.

[grahame]

The only RECENT emerging technology that I have observed has been E-scooters.
And the reaction of TPTB^▸ (The Powers That Be) has been how to restrict this newish and greenish technology, rather than how to encourage wider use.

"Ban them"
"If we cant ban them then at least restrict use to only hired machines"
"Require a car driving licence to operate an E-scooter"
"ban use on pavements"
"Ban use on roads"
"Treat as motor vehicles, with serious penalties for use after drinking"

The e-scooter 'argument' is an interesting one.  Perhaps we should take a lesson from the introduction of that great other killer on the roads - the motor car - and allow them, but with a maximum speed of 4 mph and to be preceded by a person holding a red flag. I note that rule got changed; cars got somewhat safer and much faster.  Are we likely to see something akin to the Sinclair C5 as a town run-around?

[Lee]

Are we likely to see something akin to the Sinclair C5 as a town run-around?

No.