Postscript - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 434

There are two fundamental flaws with this argument:

1 The (growing) volume of traffic is a central factor in all the types of problem

listed. Addressing them individually does not generate the synergy obtainable
from overall traffic reduction. It is also in the nature of a 'sticking plaster' solution
since one of their principal causes is unaddressed, and traffic growth will require
continuing expenditure simply to prevent congestion and other problems from
getting worse.

2 By confining action to particular types of problem at particular locations,

conditions on the road network as a whole are unaffected. This accounts for the
phenomenon (evident in LTP Delivery Reports) that, despite many individual
'improvements', overall conditions typically get worse. Without concerted action
to reduce traffic in general it is inevitable that the present 'drop in the ocean'
approach will at best achieve localised success, offset - or overwhelmed - by
general failure.

Discussing traffic-related problems without addressing the issue of traffic growth
is to ignore the elephant in the room. It means in effect that professional effort is
channelled into types of action which in an immediate sense are less politically
contentious, but which are ultimately ineffective. Practitioners' views on the need
to register an unmistakeable paradigm shift were well demonstrated at a national
conference on climate change in October 2007 supported by the TPS and RTPI where
a succession of votes showed overwhelming support for both a national road traffic
reduction target and a national target for reducing CO 2 emissions from transport (LTT
479).

25.4 Lessening individual car ownership
As Sir Colin Buchanan observed a half a century ago the motor-car is a 'mixed blessing'
(Buchanan 1957). Since then both its advantages and disadvantages have become much
more pronounced. It is strange therefore that public policy has not been directed more
towards trying to ensure that the use of cars is concentrated on the types of journey
for which it offers unique advantages. Clearly traffic congestion and parking difficulties
prompt motorists to exercise greater discretion themselves on when and where they drive.
(Road pricing would extend this further.) But set against this the continuing pattern of
private car ownership has the perverse incentive of encouraging people to drive wherever
possible in order to spread the unavoidable fixed costs (the financing of car purchase,
depreciation, tax and insurance) over as many journeys as possible.
The growth of individual car ownership is a classic example of the 'tragedy of the
commons'. At any point in time there is advantage to any one person in acquiring a car
even though the additional mobility it brings is enjoyed at the expense of disadvantage
incurred by everyone else. Not only is the efficient use of roadspace diminished but
since the new car owner is not required to continue paying for the public transport
services he or she used previously these become less economic and a downward spiral
is created whereby progressively fewer and poorer people are left to pay for them.
(Only residual 'socially necessary' services are funded from the public purse.) Left to
run its course - as is already the case in many lower density suburban and dormitory
areas - the eventual outcome is an unholy combination of excessive traffic on the one
hand and minimal public transport on the other.