Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Official Report 504KB pdf

---

“Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting our Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027”

Agenda item 4 is consideration of the transport element of the Scottish Government’s draft second report on proposals and policies—RPP2. I welcome our witnesses. The round-table format is intended to enable the free flow of discussion. There will be no opening statements from witnesses; we will have an open discussion. Please catch my eye when you want to speak, so that that can happen through the chair. I invite our guests to introduce themselves and say which organisations they represent.

I am chair of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland.

I am from Spokes, which is the Lothian cycle campaign. I also represent the CTC—Cyclists Touring Club—which is the national association for cyclists.

I am head of Living Streets Scotland.

I am director of Transform Scotland.

I represent the 2020 climate group’s sub-group on transport.

Thank you. We hope to address a number of themes: progress since RPP1; the content and format of RPP2; and the four decarbonising initiatives in RPP2, which relate to vehicles, road network efficiencies, sustainable communities and business engagement around sustainable transport—I think that that includes intelligent traffic systems.

Will witnesses comment on progress on reducing transport emissions since RPP1 was published? How should that be reported in RPP2?

I can start with the general comment that it is difficult to say how well we have progressed, because of the lack of clear data. However, we know that we have missed our first target on overall emissions and we know that transport emissions have gone up, not down, so the big-scale indicators are certainly not encouraging.

Further to Tom Ballantine’s point, I see a big contrast between the clarity of reporting on energy by means of the renewables route map, which sets out annual progress and targets for 2020, and the clarity of reporting for the transport sector.

The Scottish Parliament information centre said on page 5 of its briefing, “RPP2 and Scotland’s Climate Change Targets”:

“having examined the documentation, SPICe conclude that we could not provide any detailed breakdowns for some critical sectors, most notably transport.”

SPICe has considerably more analytic capacity than Transform Scotland has, and if SPICe has not been able to make sense of the document it will be difficult to us to make a detailed assessment of progress since RPP1. There is not sufficient information on monitoring in RPP2 to enable us to do that.

If other witnesses have nothing to add to that, will you articulate your thoughts on whether RPP2 contains sufficient detail on transport policies and proposals?

I have been given the task of giving you the big picture—if I can. We have three markers. Is RPP2 ambitious, credible and transparent? By ambitious, we mean: is it sufficient to meet our targets? By credible, we mean: does the plan, when we look at it in detail, provide comfort that we will meet the targets? Transparency speaks for itself.

From what we have seen so far, we know that RPP2 relies heavily on the European Union shifting its targets for reductions in emissions and, unless we deliver on all the policies and proposals, we will not meet our targets. That leaves us no headroom. There is no room for error in any of that, and we must deliver everything to the maximum, which is not a very good situation. The big concern is that too much of RPP2 is unfunded and unspecific, and it is difficult to tell how it will deliver particular amounts of emission reductions. There is a great concern there. A lot of the stuff on transport is given as proposals. There is virtually nothing in the way of policies—it is basically just about there being a shift in EU policy.

It is fairly obvious what we are looking for regarding transparency. We want to be shown precisely what will be done and how that will meet targets. That needs to be monitored and evaluated, and we can then come back and think about it again. A lot more should be done on transparency.

Those points are a fairly damning indictment of the current position. Presumably you have made them to Government, and you have had a response. What has that response been?

The Government position is that, for many aspects of delivery and transparency, it is difficult to be certain how particular policies will play out over time. For instance, when it comes to 2025 to 2027, there is to be a fairly large reduction in emissions at that stage, but there is no clarity on how it is to be delivered. I understand the Government position to be that it is difficult to be clear about that period because it is so far away; others might have other comments to make on that.

There are many subjects to discuss, and we have a range of figures that we may or may not achieve. The table on page 136 of the document mentions “Lower Emission Potential in Transport”. Does it surprise you that we expect to go from a cold start in 2025 to achieving savings of 750 kilotonnes CO2e a year by 2027?

It does surprise me, particularly because there is no explanation of how that is to be done. The short answer is yes—that does surprise me.

Are we in think-of-a-number territory with regard to that particular column?

We are certainly in the territory of wanting evidence as to how that figure is to be achieved. We want to see the detail that will show us how it is to be achieved. At the moment, it certainly has the look of a figure that has been plucked out of the air, slightly, without any apparent justification.

The emission saving that comes in during the final three years—2025 to 2027, I think—comes at no additional financial cost. The table shows that the total costs of the proposals are essentially flat. Such a large emission saving of 750 kilotonnes CO2e in the final year is almost as large as the whole emission saving from decarbonising vehicles, with electric cars and so forth. What is that saving, and how will it be funded? A charitable reading is that it could involve road traffic demand management measures coming in, which could be delivered in a fiscally neutral way, or potentially through raising revenue. The Scottish Government’s current position is quite averse to road traffic demand management, however.

Pass; we do not know. The figure needs to be explained. Why is the reduction being put off until the end? Surely we are trying to reduce emissions quickly, so that saving should surely be coming in at an early stage, rather than right at the end.

I will make a few points on the content of RPP2. In moving towards lower emissions, we can also improve air quality, but I do not see a strong link in RPP2 with the benefits for air quality from different technologies.

RPP2 is a bit light on road haulage and on how we might work with that sector to decarbonise freight logistics. There could be opportunities for not total but partial decarbonisation by using different fuels, such as liquid natural gas—work is starting on that, but that does not seem to be reflected in RPP2.

Linked to that is the fact that a lot of work is happening in Europe. Recent pronouncements on clean power for transport in Europe have set out a raft of measures that involve alternative fuels to move transport away from petrol and diesel. If we do that right, we can use it as part of the platform that helps us to move forward in Scotland. Linked to that are opportunities that could come from the use of natural gas, not just in road transport but in the marine sector.

There is not much about cycling in RPP2 and we are missing out on possible easy wins. The deputy convener asked about progress since RPP1. There has been virtually no progress on cycling. We have had no extra funding—funding is still 1 per cent of the transport budget—so it is not surprising that no progress has been made.

The vast majority of RPP2 is about decarbonising cars. The document contains almost nothing about alternatives to the car, yet we know that 40 per cent of car trips are of less than 2 miles and that two thirds of car trips are of less than 5 miles. Distances of up to 2 miles could be walked and distances of up to 5 miles could be cycled. A possibility exists, which will require behaviour change by the public, but the Government does not seem to be making any effort to encourage that behaviour change. RPP2 makes virtually no mention of behaviour change.

We can consider what other European countries have achieved and are achieving in leading on getting people on bikes, which has a big knock-on effect on health. Countries that have high car usage levels also have high levels of obesity and all the other diseases that are associated with that. Nobody in the Government is standing up to say, “Look—transport and health are related.” By making changes in transport, we can get benefits on the health scene.

It is time that people in the Government stood up to say that the two aspects are linked and that we cannot have a society in which everybody drives around in cars, even if they are electric. Such behaviour is bad for health and has bad implications in other social ways. If RPP2 is looking forward over a longer period, it should take such issues into account.

I am unhappy about the string of zeros for 12 years from transport in RPP2. We should bring down transport emissions now and we should see some effect in two or three years—not 12 or 13 years. It is nonsense to have all those zeros. I suspect that they really mean that transport emissions are increasing and will continue to increase, because of the present policies of building more roads. The zeros should in fact be negative values, because they are helping to increase emissions rather than positively reduce them. Do you see what I mean?

Yes. Something like a quarter of all emissions are from transport, and two thirds of that is from road transport, so we should look at putting downward pressure on that.

I will bring in the committee’s cycling guru, Jim Eadie.

11:15

I do not claim to be a cycling guru; I will always defer to those who have expertise in the area. However, in order to balance the conversation we need at least to recognise that there is a cross-party group of MSPs in the Parliament who are working hard to raise cycling’s profile. We are beginning to see some progress. I accept that the additional £6 million that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth announced in the budget will not go far enough to meet the aspirations that have been set in the cycling target. However, when the Barnett consequentials were allocated recently for capital investment projects and £300 million was released to the Scottish Government, all the shovel-ready projects that had been identified for cycling—to the tune of £3.9 million—were given the go-ahead. That was as a result of the pressure that MSPs and cycling organisations have brought to bear on the Government. We are at the base camp, perhaps, rather than the mountain top, but we are beginning to see a shift in attitudes.

What would be helpful would be an exemplar project, perhaps, which is something that I am working with colleagues in the cross-party group on cycling to promote. For example, there could be an award for a local authority to provide a designated cycle route that shows what good practice looks like. We have a cycle corridor in Edinburgh, which cost £600,000—not an insignificant amount of money. However, it is on-road and cyclists still compete with cars and buses. It is not like the designated cycling routes that we would recognise in Denmark and Amsterdam, which is the kind of cycling infrastructure that we want to see in Scotland.

If we had one good project, which would not necessarily cost a lot of money, that acted as an example of good practice for other local authorities to follow, we could begin to see the modal shift that people aspire to.

I will make a general point about what the transport section of RPP should try to achieve. All members around the table will know that some people have a major objection to taking action on climate change, because anything that we do in Scotland can be dwarfed in an instant by what can happen in rapidly industrialising countries such as China and India.

I talked to Malcolm Buchanan, who is a leading transport expert, who has been working with authorities in Shanghai and across China and advising them on what their transport objectives should be. Officials in China told him that they wanted to move away from the stereotypical image of a mass of cyclists, lots of pedestrians and buses moving through their giant megacity, because that was seen as a symptom of China being a backward country. In order for China to be seen as a modern country, everyone should be driving their cars—that was the lesson that officials had taken from development in the western world.

The challenge for the RPP and Scotland is to demonstrate that a modern country is not a car-based economy, that we have learned from all the difficulties that that creates and that we are trying to turn back the clock, if you like, to a time when walking, getting on a bike and using public transport were the natural choices.

That anecdote illustrates the ambition that the RPP could have. Scotland could demonstrate leadership and show what a low-carbon economy looks like.

I will be slightly more specific about what that means for the transport section. It is important to highlight a very clear difference in the RPP. There are two fundamental objectives in the energy section: decarbonising the energy supply and reducing demand, which are objectives that everyone around this table would sign up to.

When we look at the transport section, decarbonising transport is an objective, but it says absolutely nothing about reducing demand. Everyone would admit that that is a difficult challenge, but it is a nettle that needs to be grasped. We would like to see an acknowledgement within the RPP that more transport is not necessarily the objective of Government. Transport is a means rather than an end in itself.

Are you saying that there is an overreliance in the RPP2 on electric cars, hybrid vehicles and so on, and on decarbonisation as a solution, rather than demand reduction? Just today, the UK Government has made an announcement about infrastructure for electric cars. Is that being overemphasised in our policies at the expense of demand reduction and traffic reduction?

Decarbonising transport is an essential part, but it has a long timescale and it involves worldwide action within—

I suppose that what I am saying is that it does not necessarily drive behavioural change. People might just think, “We can have a more efficient car that produces less carbon.” Are you saying that we need to go further than that and effect behavioural change?

Behaviour change is a fundamental aspect of cutting climate change emissions. There is action that we can take now and in the medium term to create an environment in which we do not need so much transport and goods and services are available within shorter distances.

I reiterate what has just been said. It is not a case of either developing decarbonised transport or dealing with demand. We need to do both. There is an emphasis in RPP2 on the electric car-type approach. If we look at the UK Committee on Climate Change’s first progress report of January 2012, it mentions the need to address demand management. It is interesting that paragraph 7.4.6 in RPP2 states that the policies and proposals in RPP1

“are not yet being implemented at the intensity required for the abatement figures in this document.”

Even within RPP2, there is an acknowledgement that more needs to be done on the demand management measures that we are discussing.

One of the obvious ways forward is to introduce demand management measures. Our position is that, if you are going to do that, you should look at introducing measures in, say, four major cities in 2016. You might argue that there should be workplace levies for parking places. If people know what is going to happen and there is a lead-in, they can prepare for and deal with it. There are a number of demand management measures and, although they might not be easy, they need to be looked at. However, they are not mentioned at all in RPP2.

I will pick up on Elaine Murray’s question. As the 2020 group, we are looking to take positive actions that will help us to meet some of the targets, and we have just launched the transport challenge. I reiterate that we are not looking at a single measure. We are offering four options for organisations to consider, including using electric vehicles, using more public transport, better use of videoconferencing in business and organisations, and fuel-efficient driving training. There is a raft of measures because we do not believe that any one measure will take us to where we need to be. We must keep all options open and push as far and as fast as we can on all of them.

I return to Jim Eadie’s question, in which he asked for an exemplar project. I am sure that you are aware of it, but I would direct you to the smarter choices, smarter places programme, which is a sustainable transport towns programme on which the Scottish Government has been leading in the past few years. It is a shame that we do not have Jillian Anable here today, because I gather that she has been involved in the monitoring and appraisal of that project, but it might be—

I think it is recognised that Scotland has some of the best policies, strategies and targets in the world, but when we come to identify designated off-road cycle routes, it is more problematic. That is where we need improvement. Cycling needs to be seen not as something quirky or alternative but as a normal mainstream form of transport.

I certainly agree, but the smarter choices, smarter places programme was not a policy but a programme of investment in a number of towns across Scotland. It followed the sustainable travel towns programme in England, which demonstrated very high benefit to cost ratios with regard to delivering emissions reductions and a modal shift to cycling. I encourage the committee to pursue the sustainable travel towns line, because it would be a really good way of driving really good examples of cycle use in Scotland.

I draw members’ attention back to the overall Scottish budget. Although we welcome the small funding increases for cycling over the past few years, I note that, looking at the Government’s own figures, the £72.9 million for sustainable transport measures represents only 3.6 per cent of the total transport budget of £2 billion. That percentage needs to be driven up if sustainable transport is to be delivered and if we are to see much higher cycling rates.

I will make the same point with reference to Jim Eadie’s comment about the additional £6 million for cycling measures. As you know, the overall transport budget is £2 billion. RPP1 called for 5 per cent of that to be devoted to active travel—which, by my calculations, should be about £100 million a year. It is difficult to disaggregate walking, cycling, the use of electric charging points and so on to find out how much is going towards cycling, and I would like the committee to work on that issue, if possible, to ensure that, instead of having to look at some aggregated mass, we can actually see how much money is being spent in that area.

RPP1 called for 5 per cent several years ago. Given that there has been no investment in cycling, that figure will have to be increased; indeed, a number of organisations have called for 10 per cent of the transport budget to be spent on active travel. It is time that the issue was addressed. At present, 10 per cent would be between £100 million and £200 million, so Jim Eadie’s figure of £6 million looks rather puny in comparison.

It is not my figure. I have been arguing that as much money as possible should be going in.

I am sure you have. I am simply putting the issue in context.

As everyone has pointed out, achieving carbon reduction as quickly as possible will require a modal shift, and the easiest and quickest way of making such a shift is in public transport.

In that respect, Edinburgh is a success story. In the past 20 years, a substantial number of people have moved to public transport, with growth of roughly 30 million to 40 million additional journeys a year. In my view, that has happened because the bus company in Edinburgh is still publicly owned, has newer, cleaner and safer vehicles with closed-circuit television and radio connections for drivers, and works on a low-fare, high-volume model.

Of course, Edinburgh is the exception with regard to bus company ownership in Scotland but how can we make passenger transport such as buses, which serve the vast majority of people, more attractive and ensure that more people use it? In Edinburgh, a cross-section of society uses the buses but that is not necessarily the case elsewhere. What can the Scottish Parliament do to help that modal shift to public transport?

Given that my organisation campaigns for investment in public transport, we obviously want more of a shift to and greater use of it. However, I slightly contest your initial suggestion that public transport is the best way of reducing emissions. In the “Mitigating Transport’s Climate Change Impact in Scotland” report in 2009, which formed the basis for RPP1, and in RPP1 itself, which came out in 2011, the Scottish Government identified smarter choices measures—such as travel plans, car clubs, car sharing and so on—speed reduction, freight technology and eco-driving as the four areas that are most cost effective in driving emissions reductions in the transport sector.

The MTCCI report also identified that one of the most cost-effective measures to reduce emissions is bus quality contracts, which head towards bus regulation territory. The Government has therefore provided an evidential base that would support Mr MacDonald’s contention. I think that the smarter choices measures and general speed reduction are the most cost-effective methods of reducing emissions from transport.

11:30

One of the measures that the 2020 climate group is looking at in the transport challenge is greater use of public transport. One route is to consider whether businesses can help their employees make that choice and take the bus to work, for example, rather than the car. We could also work with the retail sector to assess, for example, whether retail locations can use more public transport routes to get people to shopping centres and the like. We are not working directly with everybody on the issue, but we are starting to target certain areas in which we think public transport could play a part.

A linked issue is that of air quality. For example, the investment by Lothian Buses in not just hybrid buses but buses with an emissions reduction system on the exhaust contributes to improving air quality in Edinburgh. If we can get people out of cars, which still create quite a lot of pollution, and into buses, that will benefit air quality, which helps active travel and other things as well.

I have a point on the issue of Lothian Buses getting cleaner engines for buses other than the hybrid ones. The result of that is that the miles per gallon figure drops dramatically as each new engine comes on board. Working in my previous capacity, I saw a figure for the fall of MPG over 15 to 20 years from 6 miles per gallon to 4.8. Although the engine is cleaner and produces fewer emissions, it uses more diesel.

That is absolutely correct. The progression from Euro 1 to Euro 6 has seen air quality get much better but the miles per gallon figure get much worse. However, hybrid buses can claw back some efficiencies in that regard.

Another potential option, which Aberdeen is leading in, is the use of hydrogen buses. That would mean that the bus fleet would be completely decarbonised. What is more important is that Aberdeen is making a link between hydrogen buses and the renewables sector, because the hydrogen comes from a remote wind farm site north of Aberdeen. That is an example of getting the benefits from renewables into transport.

On the decarbonisation of vehicles through having electric vehicles and hybrid buses, for example, could the Scottish Government do more to encourage switching? As somebody pointed out earlier, we seem to depend on EU directives to progress the issue. Is there anything that we can do that can add value to that movement?

I will try to answer that one.

Let us take the example of cars. The performance and efficiencies of petrol and diesel engines are getting better all the time. In addition, other technologies are being introduced in the shape of electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel-cell vehicles—you name it. The consensus seems to be that in the future there will be no dominant type of transport platform. It will not be like the choice that we have at the moment, which is petrol or diesel; there will be a wider range of choices.

The type of vehicles might vary according to the type of use. Electric vehicles could be well suited to city centre transport with small cars, because they have the right range and performance. As we move up to bigger vehicles and longer ranges, even with the improvements in battery technology it will be a challenge, so that is where plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could start to take a key part of the market.

I do not think that anybody has all the answers yet. The key thing is that the Scottish Government needs to keep a close eye on how things evolve. It should participate actively in UK and EU projects that are helping to demonstrate the technologies as they come out, so that Scotland is ready to take the technology at the point when that makes sense. You should therefore be a close follower, taking advantage of the technologies as they become available and not closing off any options. There will not be one silver bullet. We will not find that the battery vehicle or hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will do everything. In freight, it might be necessary to stick with something such as liquid natural gas to get the performance on big articulated lorries that the freight companies need.

I do not know whether that helps, but there is no simple answer on the issue. The Scottish Government can facilitate the process by keeping an open mind and ensuring that the strategy is adaptive, so that it can reflect what is happening at a point in time and take advantage of that. The Government should not say now, “This is what we will do,” because 2030 is a long time away and a lot will change between now and then. It could be a mistake to be very prescriptive about what to do.

I want to reflect on the difficult balancing act that the Government would have in supporting more decarbonised vehicles. Subsidy schemes can be run, but it is important to reflect on the fact that, at a time of austerity, subsidy schemes often subsidise reasonably well-off people to have a second car. Unfortunately, that has been proven south of the border. It is difficult to balance the aim of tackling inequalities in Scottish society with subsidising additional transport, when half the Scottish population cannot drive a car because of age or income.

I want to return to buses. I am no expert on bus vehicle technology so I will not be drawn on that topic, but the deputy convener asked what the Government can do. Obviously, I would say that it can continue with the Scottish green bus fund to allow Lothian Buses and others to purchase hybrid buses. The Government could also consider opportunities for retrofitting the existing fleet, which might be more cost-effective than the purchase of hybrid buses.

In Scotland we have a real opportunity in buses. We have one of the world’s largest bus manufacturers in Alexander Dennis and we have two of Britain’s five largest bus operators in FirstGroup and Stagecoach. As a nation, we should be making more of the situation. There is a real industrial opportunity.

I will again make a point on the bigger picture. One good aspect of the RPP2 is the way in which it lays out principles on behaviour change. It gives 10 insights on that, which include “Show leadership”, “Be consistent” and “Make change as easy as possible”.

We should not talk about asking people to get out of their cars and on to buses or to cycle and then reward people for staying in their cars; we have to push the rewards towards the people who cycle and use public transport. We should think about that when we look at measures that could be taken.

Let us go back to traffic demand measures and workplace parking levies, for instance. The money from people who take cars into work can be used to fund the people who want to cycle or use public transport—there are ways in. As I said, in the RPP2 the Government has given us good and sensible principles on what drives behaviour change, but those principles must inform policy, not just on transport issues but across the board.

I have a brief question about Colin Howden’s suggestion that speed-limit reductions are a cost-effective method of reducing carbon emissions. Were you referring to the reduction of speed limits in towns from 30mph to 20mph, or were you talking about faster driving? If you were to recommend a policy change, would it be to have 20mph speed limits in urban areas?

Yes. In general, we are very much in favour of moving to 20mph as the limit in urban areas, but that is less to do with climate reasons and more to do with improving quality of life. Keith Irving might have more comments to make on that.

Speed reduction was one of the four things that I identified—

What sort of speeds are you talking about? Are you referring to urban driving? Are you suggesting that the speed limit be brought down from 60mph to 50mph?

My notes indicate that RPP1 looked more at motorway speed-limit enforcement. In other words, it was more concerned with enforcement of the 70mph speed limit than it was with reducing urban speed limits. Some literature suggests that reducing speed limits in urban areas has mixed results as far as emissions-reduction impacts are concerned.

The RPP seems to focus on trunk roads. Elaine Murray asked about a reduction in speed limits in towns from 30mph to 20mph. That would address the number 1 barrier to people cycling more, which is fear of traffic and fear of being in a crash. Colin Howden is absolutely right—the reason for reducing the urban speed limit is to improve people’s quality of life. As Gordon MacDonald highlighted, the important point is that, if we want to achieve modal shift, cutting the speed limit in urban areas will have a positive result.

I want to add only that the 2020 climate group recently held a public debate on reducing speed limits, and part of the evidence that was presented was that, in built-up areas, 40mph is seen to be the optimum speed limit from the point of view of emissions reduction. That is not to say that we should have a 40mph limit everywhere; it is just what the academics came back with. That speed is seen as the sweet spot for minimising carbon emissions. The climate group is trying to get the discussion going, so it is tackling some of the difficult questions as well as some of the very difficult ones.

One of the four packages that are identified in the chapter on transport is road-network efficiencies, which includes use of average-speed cameras and intelligent transport systems. What role could they play in reducing emissions? Is that a significant area in which we should be investing? If we want to reduce speeds and so on, we must have a mechanism to do that, and it is clear that such mechanisms are developing.

Yes, that is something that we are broadly in favour of. The table on page 165 of RPP2 shows that the figures in the network efficiencies line are very small compared with those in the other lines—for example, decarbonising vehicles and sustainable communities, so I am not sure that network efficiencies are the most important aspect that we should be looking into.

In addition, from my reading of RPP1 and the research that it was based on, network efficiencies did not come through strongly as one of the most cost-effective areas. Earlier, I outlined the four areas that I think are most consistently effective in reducing emissions: speed-limit enforcement, smarter choices, freight vehicle technology and eco-driving.

11:45

The focus on eco-driving in RPP is good. As for intelligent transport systems, they are very important on trunk roads, but there is less evidence on their impact in urban areas.

That said, coming back to a previous point, I think that this is all about creating an environment that is conducive to making low-carbon transport choices—walking, cycling or taking the bus. Some London boroughs adjust traffic lights in order to smooth traffic flow and get a green wave, which means that if you drive at 20mph you hit green lights the whole way. There is no point in accelerating then braking—which, as we know, is an inefficient way of driving—because you will just hit a red light at the next set of traffic lights. Such systems play a role in creating a better environment but, as far as I am aware, there is less evidence of their direct impact on climate change.

In the table in RPP1 showing the costs per tonne of CO2 reduction for different approaches, intelligent transport systems emerge as the most expensive measure. I found that to be quite surprising for a number of reasons; the issue should be revisited and the numbers examined carefully.

ITS can take all shapes and forms. In the haulage sector, for example, it is not what you might call common, but it is pretty standard practice for lorries to be linked by satellite to a data-monitoring station that knows exactly where the vehicles are, how fast they are moving, whether the driver has got his foot to the floor, whether he is braking roughly and so on. All that translates into fuel economy, and the hauliers are doing it because it saves them money. If such things are starting to work in the commercial sector, it might not be very long before they become more widely used.

The key thing about computerised communication systems is that their cost is going down steadily, so it is becoming more viable to roll them out more widely. I am suggesting only that we take another look at the cost benefit analysis of ITS in RPP1, find out whether it is still valid, reference it with what is going on in the commercial sector and see whether that might give any pointers.

SCCS has called for proposals to be upgraded to policies in RPP2 and has suggested that although the Government has allocated funds for a number of proposals that will help to reduce emissions, the support is not intensive enough. Peter Hawkins has made that clear with regard to cycling.

As has been pointed out, transport spending is very much focused on road building, repairs and maintenance and so on. Do we need to shift substantially from where we are in order to get to where we need to go?

Yes, we need to shift; after all, transport emissions have gone up instead of down. Moreover—to come back to my point about behaviour change—as I said earlier, if you want people to change their behaviour, you have to reward them for the behaviours that you want. As far as roads and transport are concerned, we are actually rewarding the behaviours that we do not want.

More funding needs to go into things like travel planning and cycling and into active travel in general. If that is done, we will have a far better chance of achieving our targets.

As I said, when it comes to leadership, consideration needs to be given to what happens when people take cars into towns. We need to think about demand management. Is it appropriate not to have congestion charging? Should there be workplace parking levies? Those are difficult questions, but they need to be considered. It would be useful to know what will happen in those respects.

It is certainly true that RPP2 as drafted has no policies that are led by the Scottish Government. The only policies are EU measures; they are European Union car-emissions standards, in essence. It is important that the Scottish Government move one or more of the proposals in the transport section up into the policies section.

I said that the Government is not spending enough money on sustainable transport measures, although it is spending some: it is investing in cycling, walking, car clubs and eco-driving, for example—all of which will reduce climate emissions. The Government not only has policies in such areas but is investing in them. Such items should be moved above the line from proposals to policies. A specific example is the Government’s target to hit 10 per cent modal share for cycling by 2020. It is imperative that that be moved into the policies section.

I agree. I always understood that the cycling action plan for Scotland—CAPS—was a policy. It is certainly referred to as such in other documents. That is definitely an example that could become one of the policies.

In considering which proposals might become policies, we should consider the overall cost benefit that is delivered. For example, the numbers suggest that for the investment that is put into eco-driver training there is a much bigger return in cost savings and consequential benefits. Can we bring forward the measures that bring the greatest return and do them sooner rather than later? The Government is talking about training people in eco-driving by 2027—I think that that is the objective. Why do we need to wait 13 years to get people through eco-driver training? If something will deliver good, positive results, we should be doing it sooner rather than later.

Do members have further questions? We seem to have exhausted our discussion on RPP2. It is clear that all the witnesses are singing from the same hymn sheet.

You suggested that road building should be downgraded in the current transport budget. However, investment in such projects generates an economic stimulus and there is an imperative to boost economic activity. How do you respond to the suggestion that holding back on road-building projects will not help to promote the economy?

We are told that building trunk roads benefits the economy, but the evidence is not necessarily all there. You are perhaps aware of the principles that Transport Scotland uses to measure cost benefit analysis—the Scottish transport appraisal guidance. The principles were devised by Transport Scotland or its predecessor, and they are implemented by Transport Scotland. You can therefore see that there is no independent assessment of the cost benefit analysis of, for example, a trunk road scheme.

By the same measure, the STAG principles do not take into account the benefits from walking and cycling—cycling in particular—that can accrue in relation to health, reducing congestion and preventing urban sprawl, for example. There are definite benefits to society that should be taken into account, but they are currently not taken into account when the assessments are made.

I would like to see the committee taking charge of the principles on which schemes are assessed to see whether the benefits and costs are being attributed properly and fairly, and to ensure that non-vehicular schemes, such as active travel, get a fair share of the balance.

I agree with Peter Hawkins that the economic impact of capital investment in transport is contested. In fact, the committee received evidence from Professors Tom Rye and Iain Docherty in autumn 2011 on the Scottish budget 2012-13, and they led evidence to contest the economic impact of capital investment in transport more generally. However, I will not go over that ground and will instead address the question more specifically.

If the overall economic imperative is capital investment as an economic stimulus, we contend, based on evidence prepared by Sustrans Scotland and others, that if we spend money on smaller-scale projects it is more likely that the money will be retained locally. In such projects, the money is spent by local authorities and local contractors rather than going overseas.

Let us take the example of the second Forth road bridge. If I remember rightly, the four companies that are building that bridge are German, American and Spanish. We could argue the toss as to whether it is the right project, but it is incontestable that a lot of the funds for it are going overseas. If we spend money on local investment—walking, cycling, road maintenance and so on—the money will be retained in Scotland.

I want to make two brief points. First, Colin Howden just mentioned maintenance. It is very important to maintain what we have, and we all know that there are huge challenges in maintaining the assets that we already have, without even considering adding to them.

My second point is that we are not just your typical bearded, hairy environmentalists saying, “No road building, ever. We will sit in the trees to prevent it.” Let me take an example from the deputy convener’s constituency. The village of Maybole has been campaigning for a bypass for 40 years. We are working with the community to improve the high street both now and in anticipation of the bypass being built, so that we can create an environment that is conducive to people walking and being physically active. It is currently very intimidating for children to walk to school in the community.

It is not a simple, black-and-white case of us being opposed to all road building; we believe that it needs to be the right scheme in the right location. The bypass of Maybole is a good example as it will retain some benefits. Investing in the town centre will also generate an economic stimulus for the local economy. As the deputy convener well knows, the town centre is currently an extremely unpleasant place to go or in which to do business.

When we look at the transport budget, we have to consider the fundamental objective, which is economic growth in Scotland to allow all to flourish—and the key test is whether we allow all to flourish.

12:00

I want to make a comment about sustainability. We are not, of course, interested in just economic growth, but in sustainable economic growth, so the committee should be looking at roads in the round. That involves weighing up the benefits of there being less emissions, lower fuel costs, fewer accidents, less congestion, improved health, improved air quality and more biodiversity. You must weigh all those in the balance and consider whether or not, by using roads less and putting more into active travel and the like, we are contributing greatly to the sustainable economy and to some of the bigger values that we measure, which are, I suppose, happiness and prosperity.

It has been established that, for cyclists, rough roads require a lot more energy to ride on than do smooth roads. I suspect that the same would be true for other vehicles. If maintenance of existing roads—of course, they are mainly local roads—were to be improved there would be fuel savings for the vehicles that use them, which would also have an impact on the climate change targets. Certainly, employing local people to maintain the roads would also be a good thing.

Nigel Holmes will finish off our session for today.

Infrastructure can be looked at in different ways. The Aberdeen bypass should bring air quality benefits, emissions reductions and so on. The key point that I would like to make is that the infrastructure investment of the future needs to be linked to some of the other changes that are happening; for example, we need to consider how the national planning frameworks develop and how modal shift—moving freight from roads to sea and other water transport—could be achieved.

In the wider context, climate change is happening. The Arctic ice is melting, but that is opening up transport in the north-east and north-west passages, which could become freight routes from Europe to the far east. That would put Orkney in a potentially very good position. Orkney is already mentioned in NPF1 and NPF2 as having a strategic port. Can such ideas be developed further? Can we get from this the improved infrastructure that is consistent with doing things better with low-emissions transport options?

I thank you all very much for contributing. We will digest your evidence in putting together our report.

12:03 Meeting suspended.

12:05 On resuming—