Electric vehicles are key for reducing transport emissions, but do they produce a healthy urban transport system? David Klenert, Linus Mattauch and Simona Sulikova argue that the health benefits of physical activity also need to be considered when assessing transport policies. While electric cars will decarbonise roads, urban transport policy should assess the health impacts beyond pollution of relying on cars as the main source of transport.
Whether in 2030 or 2035, the UK has committed to banning petrol and diesel engines. This makes sense, as Global North economies will need to be carbon neutral by mid-century to meet global climate targets, so the last conventional cars should be off our roads by then.
For decades, infrastructure investment and public policy have supported the increased use of cars for personal transport, making them indispensable in cities and elsewhere. Electric cars, then, are the main option when it comes to decarbonising transportation. Car-dependency, however, has also led to increased awareness of four major adverse effects on society beyond carbon emissions: air pollution, accidents, congestion, and physical inactivity. These are all ways in which car use undermines to health. Future economic assessments of UK transport policy should be as much about the health benefits of ditching cars as they are about decarbonisation.
How cars ruin our health
Outdoor air pollution is a killer globally, taking 4.5 million lives each year, according to most recent estimates, of which around 20,000 in the UK. While transitioning to electric vehicles will help with transport-related urban air pollution by eliminating particulate matter emissions and other harmful gases from exhausts, it will not solve it. For gasoline cars, more than half of the sources of particulate matter are from road wear, brake wear and tyre wear, while diesel engines are even dirtier.
Despite all the well-known harmful side effects of driving, an important social cost is often overlooked: the opportunity cost of not walking or cycling, including to public transport stops.
Traffic congestion alone costs European economies around one per cent of GDP annually. Yet, beyond economic indices, it also makes citizens stressed and unhappy, as commutes are undertaken to make higher salaries and nicer homes compatible, with reduced time available for friends and partners. Yet, time for social interaction is important for mental well-being. There is even evidence that longer commutes statistically lead to higher divorce rates. However, when commuting does not involve sitting in a car on a congested road, satisfaction with the daily commute is far greater. Reducing car use would also eventually reduce total traffic accidents.
Despite all these well-known harmful side effects of driving, an important social cost is often overlooked: the opportunity cost of not walking or cycling, including to public transport stops. Regular exercise is widely recognised for its health benefits, yet many people struggle to integrate it into their daily routines. Research shows that most people underestimate how much physical activity can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, depression, dementia, and other health conditions. A Dutch study finds people shifting from car to bicycle for short trips lose 7 days of life due to traffic accidents, and 21 days of life due to air pollution, but gain 8 months of life due to physical activity.
In the UK, we find that every mile driven instead of walked or cycled costs approximately £2.36 (GBP). These costs are an order of magnitude higher than other social costs of driving (see Figure 1).
Calculations of optimal fuel taxes have been based on the cost of carbon emissions, air pollution, accidents, and congestion, while so far ignoring the cost of inactivity.
Fuel tax ignores the cost of physical inactivity
To mitigate the adverse effects of car use, governments have implemented diverse policy solutions. These include exhaust particulate filters to reduce air pollution and fuel economy standards to lower carbon emissions. The broadest intervention is the fuel tax, which aims to reduce car use and encourage the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
However, calculations of optimal fuel taxes have been based on the cost of carbon emissions, air pollution, accidents, and congestion, while so far ignoring the cost of inactivity. Our new research that includes this cost component finds that optimal fuel tax rates would increase by 38 per cent in the UK under the current vehicle fleet. Although using fuel taxes to promote physical activity is an indirect strategy, it can still significantly impact active travel. In the UK, around 40 per cent of all trips are under two miles, and 70 per cent are under 5 miles, distances that can be covered without a car. Even walking to and from public transport is found to be highly effective in improving people’s health. In addition, increased walking or cycling does not typically come at the expense of other exercise.
The healthcare system bears high costs for diseases that walking and cycling can help reduce.
Figure 1: The social cost of car use in the UK in 2022, including the health cost of not travelling actively. Adapted from the underlying research article.
Some argue that using transport policy to increase fitness is paternalistic and impinges on personal choices. However, urban areas offer a unique opportunity to incorporate exercise into daily commuting routines. The healthcare system bears high costs for diseases that walking and cycling can help reduce. If society fails to increase the general population’s fitness, it will face higher health insurance premiums or increased taxes to fund healthcare. For instance, looking at seven diseases, a study analysing the potential of increased walking and cycling in urban England and Wales for reducing the costs of the National Health Service (NHS), estimate savings after 20 years to be around 17 billion GBP. In the US it is even true that 10 per cent more exercise is associated with one per cent reduced health costs after three years.
Policies for reducing car use
The new UK government would be well advised to focus on health in delivering transport policies, not only on reducing carbon emissions. With the transition to electric vehicles underway, fuel taxes will become gradually less important, and further policy measures will take centre stage. In our underlying research we use fuel taxes to illustrate the order of magnitude of the costs of inactive travel, but real world governments would likely rely on more differentiated approaches. Therefore, two main implications can be drawn:
First, an ideal policy to penalise the damages to society that come from car use would be a mileage-based tax that weighs the miles driven per social cost incurred. As air pollution and congestion are largely urban issues, transport policy should especially include pricing those social damages predominantly in built-up areas. In other words, forms of urban tolls, not focusing only on congestion, but also on air pollution, should be expanded.
If a future transport system is to deliver for the health of all citizens alike, considering physical activity should be a major focus of rethinking the economics.
Second, encouraging citizens to choose active models of travel is all about getting the infrastructure right: building cycle lanes, expanding bus networks and making them more reliable should be re-evaluated for the lives they save due to increased physical activity. Importantly, creating safe conditions is key for enabling people to cycle who have so far not done so. Such measures should be introduced predominantly where those with the poorest health live.
If a future transport system is to deliver for the health of all citizens alike, considering physical activity should be a major focus of rethinking the economics. Seen this way, by reducing the burden of costly diseases such as diabetes and depression, urban transport policy could be an important contribution to safeguarding the NHS, too.
For more information, see the authors’ accompanying paper in Economica, the academic journal of the Economics Department of the LSE. The views expressed in this column are purely those of the authors and may not be interpreted as representing an official position of the European Commission.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Ekaterina Pokrovsky on Shutterstock