Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
16.3 The stance of central government
On the face of it behavioural change measures should be like manna from heaven to a
stricken Department for Transport. Here are a range of instruments which contribute
to all the 'right' objectives, which are relatively cheap and easily implemented, have
no undesirable side-effects and which generate no significant opposition. One might
expect them to be thrust centre stage in both national and local policy agendas.
And yet, to date at least, they have not been. The DfT's attitude to them remains
ambivalent and their significance within its overall spread of activities highly marginal.
What is the explanation for this?
'Soft measures' as they were originally called are an interesting example of the
difficulty faced by a bureaucracy in responding to a novel issue which does not conform
with the presumptions on which its established activities and organisation are based.
Significantly the first formal recognition of this type of measure came not from within
central government but from a group of local authorities originally led by Hertfordshire
CC who came together as the 'Travelwise' consortium to develop and share travel
awareness and other promotional techniques using this as their 'brand name'. (They
have recently merged with ACT - the Association of Commuter Transport - to
form what is in effect a 'sub-profession' of people and organisations engaged in travel
planning and mobility management.)
Compared with long-standing DfT practice, soft measures were novel in at least
three respects:
• in their aim: they are wholly concerned with reducing car use and promoting
alternative modes
• in the focus of their activity: on promotion and marketing (rather than
construction and maintenance of infrastructure, or operation of services)
• in their funding requirement: using revenue rather than capital spending as
a form of 'investment' to bring about improvements in the functioning of the
transport system.
The conflict over aim is critical. As we have noted elsewhere, the DfT has thus far
'succeeded' in resisting calls for target levels of traffic nationally, or of traffic reduction.
Its argument is that the amount of traffic is not itself an issue relevant to the setting
of objectives. Hence as far as 'smarter choices' are concerned it is prepared to endorse
and indeed encourage their use in appropriate situations (i.e. where they contribute
effectively to other, substantive objectives) but not to alter the national policy framework
in ways which, in its view, would effectively favour their adoption in inappropriate ones.
Soft measures present a more fundamental, philosophical challenge to the
Department concerning the nature of travel demand. Traditionally this was something
it observed, modelled and predicted as an 'onlooker'. If projected demand led to
unwanted outcomes then interventions would be planned which would result in
people travelling differently - more or less, by a different route, mode or whatever. The
change was achieved by altering the nature and pricing of the transport system - the
criteria by which travellers were expected to respond were unchanged. Physical and
economic levers were pulled, not social and psychological ones.
If however conditions can be improved by altering the way people perceive and
respond to them, what is the significance to be attached to any initial observation
of 'travel demand'? How far should national or local governments intervene to seek
to alter demand (by changing people's perceptions of the available choices) before
Search WWH ::
Custom Search