The Benefits of Road Transport - Essay Example

Introduction The benefits of road transport are so large, and have become so ingrained in generations born during the 20th century, that it is quiet impractical to consider alternatives without it. Air transport has substituted modes by water and rail more substantially than they have been able to affect the use of roads. Indeed, the number of vehicles has grown exponentially, and there is no sign of a change in the trend as standards of living rise all over the world. Transport is both an economic factor of immense importance and a source of a slew of environmental impacts (Institution of Civil Engineers, 1990, p 27). No government can afford to make abrupt changes with respect to direct levies for road use, without building consensus for such action within citizen and industrial groups. Road transport is not alone in causing environmental pollution, so it may not serve any comprehensive purpose to single it out. Growing world population and available technology make people seek standards of living which place enormous burden on space and finite resources (Institution of Civil Engineers, 1990, p 1). Road transport affects both users and those who live along the sides of roads (Environment/Transport Interaction, 1997, p 90). The impact is higher in urban areas. People are now more aware of environmental matters than they were in the 20th century, and there is a slight shift towards restricting the use of automobiles for private use. The move towards cleaner and renewable energy sources for vehicle engines is a more concerted and meaningful towards mitigating some of the environmental impacts of using roads. Environmental damage that is local in nature is easier to cost and to control than issues which call for global action. It is likely that people who are displaced by new road construction may be compensated adequately, so that their quality of life remains the same at the new location to which they may have to move. All national governments may not be equally focused or diligent in this respect, especially in emerging nations with high priorities for economic growth, but at least Environmental Economics has sound measures for compensating communities affected by new roads, if people would like to use them. Noise pollution in urban areas is even easier to control, and it is only in some developing countries with corrupt and ineffective policing that drivers continue to use horns and obsolete automobiles (Environment/Transport Interaction, 1997, p 100). Congestion and vibration on the roads of the world’s best administered cities, is effectively controlled by restrictions on vehicular movement and use of modern automobile technology. Technology is also adequate to regulate the movement of hazardous materials and to manage emergencies that may arise from such activity. The Geneva Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused during Carriage of Dangerous Goods was adopted in 1989. It makes transporters responsible and enjoins on them to carry insurance to cover this risk (Larsson, M-L, 1999, p 197). Technical standards for risk management in moving toxic materials have been established (Environment/Transport Interaction, 1997, p 105). Again, not all countries have systems in place or the will, but these are not matters for economists to address! Air emission and life cycle environmental damages that arise from road use are principal matters to address. They are difficult to cost, let alone to include in road pricing. It is to these vexatious and complicated issues that attention should now be focused. Concepts A broad life cycle approach to the environmental effects of air emission can serve to estimate total cost of environmental damage. Air pollution from use of roads requires Life Cycle Analysis for completeness. It is a large exercise, involving fuel extraction, processing, distribution, automobile manufacture and effects on all flora and fauna, quite apart from the effects of actual fuel use (Pearce, Johansson, and Maddison, 1996, p 52). Economists have developed models to estimate all the costs, though whether they can be recovered is a moot point at this time. Not all environmental effects of road transport are known, but methods are available in case all national governments decide together in binding manner to use the results of such extensive work to collect levies for road use, which reflect true environmental costs (Environment/Transport Interaction, 1997, p 99). The ‘polluter pays principle’ has international approval, but is effectively applied only for accidents that arise from the road transport of hazardous goods. This concept has relatively wide acceptance and appears to be a most reasonable approach (Larsson, M-L, 1999, p 90). However, there is no international agreement on road pricing based in life cycle analysis. The Contingent Valuation Method can be used to gauge willingness to pay for road use (Pearce, Johansson, and Maddison, 1996, p 33). There are some conceptual limitations to the method in terms of eliciting favorable responses towards paying new levies, but survey methods can adapt to this difficulty, and establish some approximations of how much road users may consider as amounts that they could absorb. The Total Economic Value (TEV) of assets in Environmental Economics has User, Indirect, Option and Existence components (Pearce, Johansson, and Maddison, 1996, p 33). The user value accrues to motorists and to transporters who use roads. The indirect values arise from ecological benefits that arise from use of a resource; option values relate to insurance costs of preserving an asset; existence values relate to the future and to emotional wellness; Indirect, option and existence values are not relevant in the case of road use. Hence TEV equals user value in road use. The economic benefits of road transport affect commerce and industry. Impacts vary, depending upon the layout of production and consumption centers, and upon the ratios of physical proportions of goods carried to their financial values. Nations which levy road prices on their own may jeopardize the competitiveness of industries which manufacture goods of relatively low value and high bulk. Services which depend on professionals with comparatively long road commutes will also suffer unless rail alternatives are in place. All efforts for global compliance on air emissions are far from success. The benefits of reducing such emissions are universal, but international commitment is effectively absent at this time. Incentives to use cleaner and renewable energy sources for vehicles are easier for individual countries to implement. However, such fuels have to be widely and easily available, and countries will need engines which can use relevant blends. Commercial firms which can provide distribution networks and new engines will need additional revenue streams to realize returns on their investments. They may also ask for sources of capital for the investments. The improvement in local air quality should be sufficient incentive in communities with high incomes, to support such financial assistance and assurances. However, poorer communities and those pre-occupied with economic growth may not pay heed in the short term. Situation Analysis Road transport causes air pollution which is not paid for (Bickel, & Freidrich, 2001, p 1). The extent of air pollution is affected by both controllable and external conditions (Bickel, & Freidrich, 2001, p 2). The European Union leads the rest of the world with a rudimentary system of road pricing and targets for use of alternatives to fossil fuels. The European Union makes it mandatory for member countries to introduce biofuels within committed deadlines. Countries should have already crossed 2% in 2005 and should reach almost 6% by 2010 (Biofuels for Road Transport’, not dated). The United Kingdom has not met the modest target for 2005. The country has a 20 pence per liter duty incentive with 10klt sales a month in 2005 (Biofuels for Road Transport’, not dated). Other countries have not made even the first steps of the European Union. Japanese automobile manufacturers lead the world in putting new models with hybrid engines on the market, and there are signs that US companies from this sector may soon follow suit. Air emissions from all classes of vehicles have reduced appreciably during the past decade, but there may be important lapses with respect to this parameter in the developing world. Worries about particulate matter in the immediate environment induce countries and communities to withdraw older vehicles which cannot meet new emission norms from roads. However, there is no case uncovered by this document in which a country has calculated all life cycle costs of road transport with a view to levying a road price. Citizens everywhere are skeptical about collection of levies for road use by governments, and whether funds collected in this manner would be used appropriately. There is a broad feeling that road price collections may well be deployed for some entirely unrelated matters. Aaccounting for such collections and ensuring the appropriate and judicious use of such collections is difficult if not impossible to track (Pearce, Johansson, and Maddison, 1996, p 32). National governments are not aware of the impact that road pricing may have on trade and industry in their countries (Great Britain, Department for Transport, 2004, p 94). There is no precedent of any government having taken appreciable steps to recover the total life cycle costs of environmental damage arising out of road use. The states of discussions on the matter do not indicate any political will for quick and decisive implementation of any meaningful changes from the current situation. Economists can arrive at the total costs but they may not be recoverable in any democratic set up. Environmental and safety aims may be in conflict with each other, as countries implement a series of uncoordinated actions regarding road transport. An example, relates to steps taken during winter to keep roads free of ice: some of the methods used are polluting for the environment (Environment/Transport Interaction, 1997, p 99). The logistics of use of alternatives to fossil fuels on roads is not well developed (Biofuels for Road Transport’, not dated). Road users who are aware of the environmental impact of fossil fuel use, and who wish to change their driving habits, are not able to do so. Conclusions The number of vehicles on world roads has grown ten fold in forty years, and stands at around 700 million today (Environment/Transport Interaction, 1997, p 95). This number will continue to grow, including for the heavy vehicle category. It is forecast that vehicles may travel 15 billion kilometers in 2030. Therefore, there are pressing needs to estimate all costs of environmental damage that arise from the construction and use of roads. This information may have to be used to expedite the use of cleaner and more sustainable energy to drive vehicles, rather than to levy charges on users. Air emissions and life cycle costs in vehicle production and all sequential stages leading to fuel delivery, are intractable issues which need resolution. Noise pollution and new road construction are areas under relative control. The complexities of the matter suggest that it is better for economists to turn attention to the gaps in the current situation rather than to attempt any academic exercises on this important and relevant problem. Life Cycle Analysis makes it possible to estimate the total costs of environmental damage from road use, but the exercise is futile until it becomes mandatory for all countries to levy road prices for remediation. The ozone layer effect is not possible to reverse in any case. Global consensus on the matter does not seem likely. Effective changes in total damages to the environment are impossible without concerted action by all countries. The ozone layer does not have national compartments, and engines for vehicles are also used far from where they are developed and produced. This spatial gap also applies to fuel technology, its exploration, extraction, processing and distribution. Road pricing by a few nations runs the risk of threatening its commerce and industry, apart from the opposition that it would generate in any democratic set-up. Governments are not generally equipped and organized to collect road pricing rules even if they were framed (Great Britain, Department for Transport, 2004, p 94). This is not a desirable option, and its feasibility is open to question on an international basis. OECD countries and the European Union have been more enthusiastic about environmental concerns of road transport than other countries (Environment/Transport Interaction, 1997, p 95). Global agreements are still at the level of white papers. Countries which are diligent in charging road users for reparation of the environmental damage arising out of such transportation run the risk of losing out on competitiveness with others which do not observe the same standards. Incentives to produce automobiles that use clean fuel, and funds for investments to make such fuel easily available, appears to be a better path to follow. Use of renewable and non-polluting energy sources for automobile manufacture is also possible for the few countries and companies that undertake such manufacture, to implement. Any petrol or diesel car can run on low levels of biofuels blended with fossil fuels (Biofuels for Road Transport’, not dated). Higher proportions of biofuels require special engines. Manufacturers are moving to engines that can run on a range of blends. We may see appreciable reductions in environmental damage levels by making alternate and cleaner fuels making more widely and easily available. Safe disposal of the nearly 1 billion automobile engines which work on fossil fuels has not been addressed in the literature surveyed for this document. However, the measures suggested in this section will make meaningful inroads in to containing the environmental damage due to road transport. This can be better achieved through incentives and physical distribution infrastructure, rather than by attempting a probably unpopular system of road pricing. It may not be productive to single out road use for costing environmental damage and to charge for road use in isolation of effective steps to curb the same effects from other spheres of social activity in all parts of the world. Fossil fuels have non-automobile uses, and all urban and infrastructural development has life cycle costs of environmental damage. A holistic approach to Environmental Economics and the regular application of this discipline in all spheres of national and international activity, will produce better results, and win widespread support as well. References Bickel, P & Freidrich, R, 2001, Environmental External Costs of Transport, Springer ‘Biofuels for Road Transport’, not dated, Department for Transport, UK Website, retrieved March 2006 from < http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_610329-03.hcsp> ‘Environment/Transport Interaction’, 1997, Road Transport Research, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, pp 95-106 Great Britain, Department for Transport, 2004, ‘Feasibility Study of Road Pricing in the UK’, Department for Transport: Feasibility of Road Pricing in the UK, p 94, TSO Shop Institution of Civil Engineers, 1990, ‘Transport’, Pollution and its Containment, Thomas Telford Larsson, M-L, 1999, The Law of Environmental Damage, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Pearce, D, Johansson, O and Maddison, D, 1996, Blueprint for the True Costs of Road Transport, James and James/Earthscan Read More