The benefits to the public of vehicle legislation — Attempts to measure the unmeasurable

Abstract

Although inevitably there are grey areas, a distinction may be drawn between environmental disbenefits arising from vehicles which cause annoyance, such as noise, or loss of peace and quiet, vibration, visual intrusion, severance, and those which endanger “life and limb”. Legislation implemented to reduce either category will inevitably generate costs.

It is suggested that in evaluating legislation relating to environmental “nuisance,” attempts should be made carefully to measure the benefits, while for legislation when “life and limb” is involved a cost-effectiveness approach should be adopted. Methods currently available to measure environmental nuisance arising from vehicles, for example opinion surveys, observing the effect of changes in some independent indicator, and simulation exercises are critically examined. Using evidence from the Urban Motorway Committee Reports, Noise Advisory Council, Transport and Road Research Laboratory surveys on the effect of traffic in selected High Streets, and the Realistic Environment Assessment Laboratory, Social and Community Planning Research “ping-pong” technique, studies of house price differentials, and estimates of willingness-to-pay for exclusion facilities, an attempt is made to highlight the dilemma that while benefits of environmental nuisance legislation should be carefully weighed against the anti-pollution costs, techniques currently available for measuring such benefits are very underdeveloped.

Paradoxically there is a far more clear-cut procedure for valuing benefits of policies affecting “life and limb”. Official accident evaluation policy in the U.K. is described, and legislation affecting “life and limb” is examined.

Finally, difficulties of effectively enforcing legislation of both environmental “nuisance” and “life and limb” categories are illustrated.