Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
to the change in fuel mix and less reliance on petrol as a fuel for cars. There are no gains
made against accessibility, economic or safety objectives, as captured in the multi-criteria
appraisal framework. Hence the scenario can be viewed as positive in low CO2 terms but it
performs poorly against wider sustainability objectives. The use of MCA illustrates the
complexity in decision-making, where seemingly simple policy choices can have very wide
impacts if assessed against multiple criteria which often act in different directions.
Scenario 3: sustainable mobility
Scenario 3 gives a much more balanced approach to reducing transport CO2 emissions, and
achieves much more against the wider sustainability criteria. The scenario results are given
reduction impact is 1,365,697 tCO2 per annum (a 48.3 per cent reduction relative to the BAU
level in 2030). The end result is a figure of approximately 2.0 tCO2 per capita transport
emissions in 2030, and this compares to a BAU
figure of 4.10
tCO2 per capita (and relative
to a 2005 transport baseline of 3.8 tCO2 per capita and target of 1.2 tCO2 per capita). The
scenario represents a significant level of intervention, but it is still unaffordable under current
funding regimes, and it is also insufficient against assumed targets. This is a major problem
for decision-makers.
The scenario hence delivers a significant level of CO2 reduction. The major CO2 reduction
impacts arise from the following policy packages, and they also include the two packages that
were used in Scenario 2 (Clean Mobility), implemented at the same levels of severity:
•
PP12 Low-emission vehicles (high): as in Scenario 2 a high level of application is
envisaged. The total car fleet averages 95 gCO2/km and HGVs (fully loaded) 800 gCO2/km
by 2030. This level of new vehicle technology penetration will be very difficult to achieve
across the whole vehicle fleet. The levels (2006) for the current new car fleet are at around
165 gCO2/km and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) (fully loaded) at 1,100 gCO2/km.
•
PP13 Alternative fuels (medium): as in Scenario 2 there is an increase in diesel cars and
a much greater uptake of biofuels across all modes - the figures for the different vehicle
fuels in the total fleet are: car - 25 per cent diesel (up from 15 per cent), 60 per cent
petrol, 15 per cent alternative fuels (mix of LPG, electric and biofuel); HGV - 75 per
cent diesel (from 100 per cent) and 25 per cent alternative fuels; bus - 60 per cent diesel
(from 100 per cent) and 40 per cent alternative fuels.
•
PP14 Slower speeds and ecological driving (medium): this has a major impact, representing
20 mph speed limits in all major towns and 50 mph speed limits on all rural single-
carriageway roads; lower speed limits are supported by variable signage and enforcement.
There is also a targeted public education campaign concerning ecological driving skills.
This package achieves a 5 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions.
•
PP15 Freight (medium): HGV freight movements represent over 20 per cent of traffic on
key routes in Oxfordshire, particularly the A34 and M40, and the large and heavy vehicles
are high CO2 emitters. An assumed increase in rail freight capacity between the south
coast ports at Southampton and the Midlands and North, together with advisory HGV
routing, would reduce heavy goods vehicle traffic through the county. This package also
achieves a 5 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions.
•
The other selected policy packages also have a direct impact on CO2 emissions, but the
scales of impact are less than the above. PP1 Rail (medium), PP2 Bus (medium), PP3
Walk (high), PP4 Cycle (high), PP6 TDM/Active traffic management (medium), PP7
