By 2025 there will be 10m extra cars on the road - unless we overhaul the nation's public transport policy. Mary Fagan anticipates a Royal Commission report on pollution, likely to be hard-hitting
'Continuing with previous policies is not an option. It is producing grid-locked roads and poor air quality which causes ill heath'
Times are tough in booming Britain for those who care about the environment. Cars abound because of their convenience and the air of affluence they lend. Yet many drivers are increasingly worried about pollution and the health of their children - even those drivers who are not are irritated by the traffic jams and fumes, which they help to create.
In a matter of weeks the issue will be catapulted into the public consciousness with a report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Details remain secret but it is firmly predicted that this will be one of the most hard-hitting reports ever issued on the subject of traffic pollution by such an authoritative body.
The government is aware that action is overdue. Already, "Honest" John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, has launched his own consultation on future transport policy. He wants to get people out of their cars and on to public transport. But critics say the exercise - which will lead to a White Paper in the spring - looks in danger of becoming just another talking shop.
The transport industries, meanwhile, fear any consultation must lead to yet further cuts in government funding of transport overall and roads in particular.
One key question is what it will cost to achieve the sea change in people's habits and who will pay. Another is whether the automotive and transport industries have the ability and will to adapt to the new world of transport envisaged by Labour.
The government's review will be far-reaching if Prescott has his way. He says: "Forecasts suggest that in 20 years' time traffic levels will be between 36 per cent and 57 per cent higher than now, and that by 2025 there will be 10m extra cars on the road.
"Continuing with previous policies is simply not an option. It is producing congested, grid-locked roads; a deterioration of rural services; declining use of public transport and greater dependence on the car; and poor air quality which damages our environment and causes ill heath," he added.
According to Friends of the Earth, transport is the main source of air pollution in Britain's towns and cities and in London can be blamed for causing about 99 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions, which slow thinking and impair reactions.
Friends of the Earth also says that transport accounts for three quarters of the capital's nitrogen dioxide emissions, which can aggravate asthma and bronchitis. Equally worrying, road transport is a major source of tiny particulates - bits of dust and soot - which American studies have linked to deaths from heart and respiratory disease.
Traffic also contributes to emissions of hydrocarbons which are a cause of global warming. According to FoE, road transport is the fastest growing source in Britain of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas.
These figures cannot be ignored. In Britain, the incidence of asthma has doubled in the past 15 years and, according to the National Asthma Campaign, the complaint hits as many as one in seven children.
Concerns over transport-related emissions have already been aired by the Royal Commission. In a report published in 1994, it warned: "We are concerned that the present use of road vehicles may be causing serious damage to health by triggering or exacerbating respiratory symptoms and by exposing people to carcinogens from vehicle emissions. The situation should therefore be regarded as unsustainable."
Little has happened since then to address the issues, a dereliction which is unlikely to have impressed the commissioners. The message this time round will be stark: do something to reduce traffic and do it quickly.
In the last report, Sir John Houghton, chairman of the commissioners, warned: "The current opportunity for rethinking and planning the long-term future of transport is one that must not be missed. It must be firmly grasped not only in terms of necessary debate but also in terms of deliberate and persistent action."
But three years on, observed one environmentalist: "We are all concerned that the scale of response by the powers that be does not seem to measure up to the scale of the problem."
Prescott has admitted that persuading people to reduce their dependence on cars and make more use of public transport - and even cycle - is a tall order. The statistics speak for themselves.
A report published last week by the National Consumers Council showed the average distance travelled per person in Britain has risen by almost three quarters over the past 5 years to nearly 18 miles each day.
Between 1971 and 1992 the number of private cars in the UK rose by 93 per cent to 20.1m. Today, seven out of 10 journeys of a mile or more are by car while travel by bus and coach, which took the lion's share in the 1950s, now accounts for only 6 per cent of miles travelled.
As Prescott put it, the two-car family is "not a symbol of prosperity but of failure of the public transport system." But the problem is that people will want to see public transport enhanced before they will contemplate giving up their cars.
The initial proposals outlined by ministers "for consideration" include possible charging for using congested roads, creating an orbital railway for London using existing lines and better cooperation between regional airports such as Manchester and Liverpool. They will also consult on how new supermarkets, housing, schools and hospitals could be sited near public transport and how cycle routes can be made safer.
There is little information about cost. The government admits in its consultation document: "Resources are constrained and as we develop our integrated transport policy it will be necessary to balance the various competing calls on government expenditure".
On the subject of roads it raises the issue of partnerships between the public and private sectors but gives little detail. So woolly and vague are the suggestions that estimates of how much it might cost are so far impossible to find.
Despite Prescott's promise that "this approach is not anti-car", it certainly feels like it to motoring and other industry groups.
Even if the government raised money from tolls or road-pricing, the British Road Federation fears that there could be a five-year hiatus in investment while such schemes get up and running. The bigger issue is whether any funds raised from roads would be re-invested in the transport infrastructure at all.
Professor Philip Goodwin of University College London, who will chair Prescott's panel of expert advisors, said: "If they decide to use prices as a lever for influencing transport demand and if they decide to use revenues raised in that way as an income stream to improve transport, then we really are into virgin territory."
Among the most vocal commentators is the Automobile Association which wants the government to completely overhaul the way Britain funds its transport system. The AA argues that motor tax revenues raise £24bn a year, including VAT and other taxes on fuel and vehicle excise duty. But the national road programme and funding of local roads through grants takes only £6bn. Some of the £18bn goes on costs such as accidents and congestion; the bulk goes into the Treasury's general coffers.
The AA wants motor tax to be used more fully to improve the transport system. The boosted monies could also be leveraged by access to the capital markets.
Goodwin urges people to stop whingeing and instead make their voices heard.
"The government has asked for strong and hard-hitting advice and shows every sign of being willing to listen. Society is now willing and able to make a historic change in the way we run our transport system. I think it will take one generation, maybe two."
So far the response can best be summarised as: Does anyone out there care?
