The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 17: Monitoring: Existing and Future Targets

17.1 The consultation stated:

We currently have a target, from the UK National Cycle Strategy, to quadruple cycle use between 1996 and 2012. We remain committed to cycling as a sustainable, healthy mode of transport. However, trends suggest that cycling is not increasing at the level that would allow this target to be met, and it may be that local/regional target-setting is in any case more appropriate in influencing short journeys by bike. Accordingly, and in the light of the UK Government's move away from a single national target, we propose to review this target formally, and may seek to replace it with more local targets.

The consultation asked:

Q58: Are consultees content that the target of quadrupling cycle use should now be reviewed? What, if anything, might replace it (for example, local authority-level targets on the DFT model)?

In total, 92 respondents (29%) addressed this question. Unfortunately, many of the responses were difficult to interpret largely as it was unclear whether some consultees advocated reviewing the target with the aim of re-introducing it at local level, or whether they were content for an updated national target to remain.

Against this background, it is considered that perhaps 34 respondents wished to see a national target retained (with some of these also recommending local targets too); and 29 wanted the national target to remain at the current level. Twenty four consultees appeared to favour local targets (although it was not entirely clear if some of these also wanted a national overarching target to remain). A further 21 respondents agreed that a review of the target was needed.

17.1.1 Reasons Given for Retention of Target Level

Several respondents argued strongly for the retention of the target level for increasing cycle use. One considered abandoning this target to be a " sad admission of defeat" ( LA). Another commented:

" Abandoning the national target for increasing cycling on the grounds that inadequate progress has been made towards meeting it is a curious way of demonstrating a commitment to promoting cycling" (Acad)

Another stated that in their view, the efforts made so far to meet this target had been, " ill informed, half-hearted and incompetent" (Pub). It was argued that " what is required is a redoubling of efforts to achieve this target" ( EB/ ST). One consultee suggested that by leaving the target in place and taking it seriously, it would become a " self fulfilling prophesy" (Pub).

Other consultees argued that the target was already relatively low in comparison with other countries (Pub) and it should perhaps be set at a more internationally comparable level (Oth PB). Finally, the failure to make sufficient progress towards this target was seen by one respondent as a wake-up call (Oth PB).

17.1.2 Reasons Given for Retaining a Target at National Level

The overriding rationale provided for retention of a national level target was that this signified the importance and priority attached by the Scottish Executive to increasing cycling levels. It was considered that local targets may not be taken seriously (Oth PB) and may vary too much between areas ( LA). It was commented that a national target was useful in guiding local level targets ( EB/ ST).

17.1.3 Reasons Given for Reviewing the Target

A few of those advocating a review of the target provided reasons for their recommendation. It was considered that the current target is arbitrary ( LA, LA), unrealistic (Rep Org) and too ambitious (Tr Op). A recurring comment was that it does not reflect the different circumstances in urban and rural locations. One view was that it does not differentiate between utilitarian and recreational cycling ( LA). A few respondents recommended that a modal share target replace the current overall use target ( LA, Rep Org).

Some consultees stated that it was never clear how progress towards the current target was to be monitored ( LA, LA, RTP), with another urging that a more robust baseline measure of existing cycle use should be established prior to a new target being identified ( LA).

17.1.4 Reasons Given for Adopting Local Targets

It was considered that local cycling targets would be more meaningful than one set at national level ( EB/ ST) as they could reflect local issues and circumstances (Pub, LA, RTP, Oth PB, EB/ ST). It was also considered that there would be more scope locally for persuading people to cycle ( LA) and that the NTS could usefully provide an indication of possible scale of targets for local authorities to work towards ( LA).

17.1.5 Other Comments

One view was that more cycling should not be encouraged until there were many more cycle paths to handle it (Pub). Others considered there to be no particular need for a cycling target (Bus, Bus) with one consultee suggesting an emphasis instead on Paths for All (Pub). It was recommended that further work should be done to link the promotion of cycling with the National Physical Activity Strategy ( EB/ ST, Vol). Another consultee saw the need for a joint national walking and cycling strategy ( LA).

17.2 The consultation asked:

Q59: Are there other measures which should be considered in Scotland which would move us towards the target to stabilise road traffic volumes at 2001 levels by 2021, recognising that significant fiscal measures would have to be agreed by the UK government?

Relatively few respondents addressed this question with a total of 75 consultees (24%) providing commentary. Eight of these (with an over-representation of environmental bodies) stressed that in their view the 2021 target should remain. Another consultee advocated setting local stabilisation targets (Rep Org). Several others recommended replacing the road traffic stabilisation target with targets focusing on environmental issues and congestion ( LA, LA, LA, RTP, Rep Org, Bus). Some respondents argued that the 2021 target was simply unrealistic (Pub, EC), and not underpinned by objective analysis ( LA). A recurring theme was that road traffic stabilisation may not be entirely appropriate as a target in rural areas. One consultee argued that further consideration should be given to how trying to stabilise traffic volumes fitted with the need to travel for business purposes (Bus).

Most of the remaining comments received simply re-iterated the views which consultees had provided earlier in relation to questions on modal shift. The following measures were highlighted as helping to move Scotland towards the target to stabilise road traffic volumes:

• Integration of land-use and transport planning policy
• National road pricing
• Increased promotion of journeys by modes other than private car
• Increased investment in and promotion of walking and cycling
• Increased investment in public transport
• Curtailment of road building programme
• Increased rail capacity
• Moving more freight from road to rail and sea
• Parking policy
• Enforcing bus priority measures
• Encouraging flexible working hours and working from home

Finally, a recurring comment was that fiscal measures, although out of Scottish control, would make a significant impact towards achieving traffic stabilisation and the Scottish Executive should seek to influence such measures as far as possible.

17.3 The consultation asked:

Q60: Do consultees agree with the proposals to:

• continue to have stabilisation of road traffic as a high level aspiration;
• use indicators measuring modal shift to measure how our modal shift policies are working; and
• redirect our efforts more clearly at the environmental and congestion issues which underpin the traffic stabilisation aspiration by:
  • considering the new transport-related target(s) for CO2; and
  • continuing to monitor congestion trends on our trunk roads, as at present, and considering what further measures might be required

In total, 98 respondents (31%) addressed this question. Many of the responses tended to be difficult to interpret on account of the overlap in comments between this and the previous and following question, and the breakdown of the question into several parts with a lack of clarity in many responses as to which segment of the question the comment referred. In many instances the respondent appeared to be arguing for a particular target but did not actually specify that they fully supported its use. Against this background the following limited analysis has been conducted.

Two broad comments were a request for the proposals to be more clearly related to the goals at the start of the NTS (Oth PB); and that overall these targets should keep consultants busy but were of questionable value (Tr Op).

17.3.1 Views on Continuing to Have Stabilisation of Road Traffic as High Level Aspiration

Of those who expressed a view, it appeared that those in favour of continuing with the road traffic stabilisation high level aspiration greatly outnumbered those against. However, many qualified their support. For example it was suggested that more work was required on this aspiration ( LA), such as making it clearer how it was going to be achieved ( LA). A recurring theme was that a target would be preferable to an aspiration. Others argued that road traffic stabilisation may not be appropriate for all areas especially those remote and rural ( CTG, LA, LA, Bus). One respondent urged that sight should not be lost of the wider issues of physical activity levels and climate change ( EB/ ST).

Those arguing against the continuation of this high level aspiration considered that it was simply unrealistic ( LA, LA, Rep Org) and needed to be addressed by measures outwith the control of the Scottish Executive (Pub, Bus). Calls were made for the aspiration to be linked more closely with the vision and aims set out in the NTS (Oth PB, LA). It was commented that the aspiration was unachievable until the link between economic growth and traffic growth had been broken ( LA, Rep Org). One respondent stressed that economic development must remain the priority ( EC). Another view was that it was inappropriate to inherit an aspiration and instead, one should be developed through the STAG process ( LA).

17.3.2 Views on Using Indicators Measuring Modal Shift

Around 40 respondents appeared to support the proposal to use indicators measuring modal shift to measure how the modal shift policies are working. However, it may be that more support existed, but consultees did not make this clear in their response.

A few related comments were made. A few respondents supported this proposal so long as the modal shift indicators were supplemented by others such as those measuring traffic levels ( LA), or those separating work travel from leisure travel ( LA). It was recommended that modal shift indicators should be linked to absolute measures relating to different transport modes (Oth PB). One view was that any indicators should take account of rural variation in circumstance ( CTG).

Of the few respondents arguing against this proposal, one considered that such indicators would be of marginal use at enormous cost (Pub), whilst the other questioned their benefit to transport users (Rep Org).

17.3.3 Views on Redirecting Efforts More Clearly at Environmental and Congestion Issues

Overall around 40 consultees appeared to support this proposal with a further 7 advocating transport related targets for CO2 emissions and another 4 welcoming the continued monitoring of congestion trends.

It was commented that the issue of robust monitoring should be tackled ( LA, Tr Op) with the need for an appropriate baseline identified ( LA).

In relation to new targets for CO2 emissions, one consultee cautioned that any progress could be diluted by continued use of inefficient car engines and increased traffic ( LA). It was argued that achievement should be linked to progress towards other goals (Rep Org) and the target should be sensitive to other environmental impacts ( RTP).

According to one consultee, the continued monitoring of congestion served no purpose (Pub). Another agreed that congestion monitoring in isolation did not have meaning (Rep Org).

17.4 The consultation asked:

Q61: Do consultees have any views on the idea of a move to regional traffic reduction targets in place of a national target?

In total, 83 respondents (26%) addressed this question. Of these, 78 provided a clear view on whether or not they supported a move to regional traffic reduction targets. The majority view (71%) was in favour of such a move.

Amongst those in favour of a move to regional traffic reduction targets were many local authorities. A common view was that rather than replace a national target, regional targets should be produced in addition. Consultees were split over the issue of consistency in target setting. Whilst some appeared to indicate that there should be a consistent approach to target setting across regions (Tr Op, Tr Op, Tr Op), others considered that not all regions needed to set traffic reduction targets, and that this would depend to a large extent on the scale of their congestion and/or pollution problem (Bus, LA, Oth PB).

Regional targets were seen as advantageous on account of the potential for them to reflect local variation ( LA, LA, LA, LA, Bus, Oth PB, Oth PB) and take account of specific traffic and economic issues in a region ( CTG). It was considered that the national target was too blunt an instrument to be of much use ( CTG) and that regional targets could better fit with regional policy (Oth PB).

Those opposing regional targets argued that a national target would carry more strategic meaning ( LA) and ensure that the issue stayed high profile (Oth PB). A recurring concern was that regions would be even worse placed to pull the necessary levers to reduce traffic than the Scottish Executive ( LA, LA, RTP). One respondent remarked that regions did not have the necessary resources to maintain their own targets ( LA), with another arguing that the achievement of a regional target could be influenced by cross-boundary factors outwith their control ( LA). A final concern was that some regions might set targets and others may choose not to, leading to inconsistencies (Pub, Pub).

17.5 The consultation asked:

Q62: Given the difficulties with the national traffic stabilisation aspirational target, do consultees agree that realistic, deliverable milestones towards its delivery cannot be put in place at present?

In total, 89 respondents (28%) addressed this question. Of these, 81 provided a clear view on whether they considered that milestones towards delivery of the national traffic stabilisation aspirational target could be put in place. The majority view (64%) was to disagree with the question and favour the instigation of milestones.

The comments of one consultee who favoured the use of milestones reflected the views of many:

" without realistic deliverable milestones there is little chance of any progress being made towards these targets. It is important that such targets are agreed and resourced" (Oth PB)

Milestones were seen as helping to monitor progress ( EB/ ST, Rep Org) and ultimately helping actions to be delivered (Oth PB, LA, LA, Rep Org). It was considered important to have such targets in order to be accountable and have results to publish (Pub). One respondent cautioned that without milestones, any " aspirational target" may revert to being merely " wishful thinking" (Rep Org).

No substantive rationale emerged from those agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the question that milestones should not be put in place at present. One comment, however, was that other milestones should be identified relating to the overall economic, environmental and social objectives of the NTS ( RTP).

17.6 The consultation stated:

We are committed to strengthening the contribution of key policy sectors to our efforts to tackle climate change in Scotland. This could relate to the sector as a whole (transport being one such sector), and/or for activities within a sector. The contribution for the transport sector has not yet been set, and analysis is required to identify the appropriate level(s) and the best way to achieve it or them. Such analysis will need to take account of areas in which the Executive has developed policy responsibility and the availability and adequacy of data.

Our view at present is that such contribution(s) are likely to be most relevant to our devolved competence if they seek to measure the impact on carbon emissions of the Executive's work in devolved areas. This would probably mean something other than a simple carbon reduction target for all transport.

The consultation asked:

Q63: Do consultees agree that setting a level of contribution for reductions in Scotland's CO2 emissions which are directly linked to the impact of our policies in areas which are devolved would be the best measure of the Scottish Executive's effectiveness in tackling transport emissions?

This question attracted relatively few comments with 78 respondents (25%) addressing it. The question proved to be slightly ambiguous in that some respondents appeared to address the issue of whether a level of contribution for CO2 reductions should be set at overall devolved policy level, with others addressing the issue of reductions at transport sector level. For many it was not clear which of these scenarios was being addressed. This situation may have arisen as the preamble to the question refers to the contribution of the transport sector, whilst the question itself refers to devolved policies.

For the purposes of analysis, responses of all those who expressed their agreement (to devolved or sector reduction levels) have been amalgamated, as have those who expressed opposition.

Overall, 62 respondents stated clearly whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposal to set a level of contribution for reductions in Scotland's CO2 emissions linked to devolved policies or the transport sector itself. Of these, the majority view (79%) was in favour of this proposal.

Despite supporting the proposal, many consultees inserted provisos into their response such as:

• So long as air transport emissions are also tracked (Oth PB, Rep Org)
• So long as UK policy emissions are also tracked (Oth PB)
• So long as the level is achievable and planned jointly with other policy areas in Scotland (Oth PB)
• So long as nitrogen dioxide emissions are also measured ( LA, LA)

One respondent considered that it should be standard practice for the Scottish Executive to keep in mind the environmental impact of its policies (Acad). Another remarked that although emission levels could be set, achieving them would be affected by the action in other areas ( LA). A call was made to benchmark the level and progress against the rest of the UK ( EB/ ST).

Those opposing the setting of a CO2 emission level for devolved or transport policies, did so largely on practical grounds in that they could not envisage how accurate measurement could be carried out. A typical comment was:

" This would be difficult if not impossible to measure and assess any impacts" ( LA)

There was concern that the exercise of setting levels would be meaningless ( LA, Tr Op) and may make Scotland less competitive in comparison with the rest of the UK ( EC).

Some general commentary was also submitted in relation to this question. A few respondents urged that thinking on this matter should be joined-up with the UK Government ( LA, LA) with international aviation also included in the emissions reckoning ( EB/ ST). Whilst it was considered good practice to set a level for emissions ( LA, Rep Org), a pre-requisite identified by one consultee was for climate change emission to be a principle objective within the NTS ( EB/ ST).

17.7 The consultation asked:

Q64: What specific reduction level(s) for CO2 should be put in place for transport?

This question attracted the lowest response of all of the questions posed in the consultation. In total, 46 respondents (15%) addressed the issue of specific reduction level(s) for CO2. Based on the comments which were made, it is likely that most consultees felt that they did not have the technical knowledge required to make a recommendation.

17.7.1 General Suggestions Made

Several respondents suggested that the Scottish reduction level(s) should be in line with those set in the rest of the UK or in the EU (Pub, EB/ ST, LA, LA, Rep Org, Rep Org). It was commented that the Department of Trade and Industry set a long-term target of 60% reduction by 2050 and that this could be examined for appropriateness ( LA). Likewise, the Scottish Climate Change Programme was referred to with its reduction level of 0.5 MtC by 2010 (Oth PB). Recent and relevant research undertaken by the Tyndall Centre was also referred to as potentially useful in informing CO2 reduction level(s) ( EB/ ST).

17.7.2 Specific Recommendations

Twelve respondents made more specific recommendations for reduction level(s) for CO2.

These were:

• 60% reduction by 2050 ( EB/ ST)
• 50% reduction to begin with (Pub)
• 20% reduction by 2010 ( EB/ ST)
• 17% reduction (Rep Org)
• 5% reduction over the duration of the strategy (Oth PB)
• Not less than 1.2% from internal Scottish transport (Rep Org)
• Regular percentage reductions on an annual basis as a starting point ( LA, LA, LA)
• Stabilise the level to begin with ( LA)
• Stabilise the level then reduce to the 2001 level by 2021 (Rep Org)
• Set high targets to avoid undermining the progress made by other policy sectors ( EB/ ST)

17.7.3 Other Comments

A recurring comment was that more analysis would be needed before any level(s) could be agreed. One respondent stressed that detailed technical evaluation and economic modeling would be required (Tr Op). Others agreed that the question was best addressed by the Government's Scientific Advisors ( LA) with more detailed technical information at hand (Tr Op). Several respondents declared themselves simply not qualified to make an informed response ( LA, Pub, Pub, Rep Org).

A few respondents warned that any level(s) set should be realistic (Pub, LA, LA, Tr Op) and should not simply be set at level(s) which we think we can get away with ( CTG). It was recommended that the level(s) should not be set arbitrarily but should be linked to expected benefits of new policies (Oth PB) and alongside other targets from all carbon emissions ( LA).

« Previous | Contents | Next »