Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Why should the public be concerned with climate change as long as they can consume
their next vehicle, hopefully slightly larger and quicker than their previous model? Dunn and
Perl (2010) discuss these issues in terms of 'policy monopolies', with the successful debate
driven by interests and alliances. The difficulty, of course, in calling for widened participation
to overcome the organised lobbies, is that the local vested interests may also come to the fore,
the vocal and active participants shaping decision-making, but simply changing the debate to
represent their own self interests.
16
The experience of neighbourhood planning in the UK is
perhaps a good example here.
In terms of the trends, distance travelled has increased dramatically over time as faster
transport has replaced slower forms of transport, but it has only been in the last 50 years that
real growth in both speeds and distances have taken place. Until about 150 years ago (1860),
daily travel distance was limited to travel by foot and on horseback, but the railway changed
this with speeds increasing from 5 km/hr (walk) and 10 km/hr (horse) to over 40 km/hr
(rail). By 1900, daily travel distances had increased to about 1 km per person per day, and to
10 km by 1960, and 50 km by 2000, with a large increase in use of the car (Grübler, 1990;
2004) (
Figure 1.24
)
. The question here is where does this exponential increase end - is there
a plateau - or are there no limits to the distance that can be travelled? Of course, it is all
down to the availability of different means of travel: the growth in usage of the car, and more
recently short-haul air and high-speed rail, often facilitates yet further the average distances
travelled. What travel patterns are around the corner? Will speed be so important in the future?
Perhaps the quality of the journey, and the possibility for 'productive' travel (reading, working,
listening to music, chatting to friends, surfing the web) might become a much greater inspiration
for the public and also an objective for transport investment.
The expected levels of mobility and distance travelled are forecast to increase by over three
times (2005-2050), with much of this growth taking place in countries and cities that currently
have low levels of mobility (Schäfer, 2009). The use of ICT and electronic interaction, including
email, but also wider electronic social interaction, offers an additional 'mode' of interaction
to the Grübler analysis, and potentially one that can substitute for physical travel. Though the
evidence suggests that complex adaptations occur rather than substitution (Mokhtarian, 1988),
which at times lead to additional travel, there is much larger potential in the longer term to
develop very different travel behaviours where substitution becomes a greater reality (Castells,
2000). There are signs, in the Western context at least, that we may have hit the peak of car
ownership and use (Millard-Ball and Schipper, 2010) - if this has happened, and lasts beyond
the current economic downturn, then perhaps a tipping point has been reached.
The current pathway of increased mobility is unsustainable, unless the expected growth
in transport mobility is more than matched by a decarbonisation of the transport sector - this
is the key nexus faced. The choice seems to be clear: either transport is decarbonised so that
travel can take place without the carbon costs, or the growth in transport needs to be moderated
and reduced substantially, or more likely, a combination of both. To a certain extent, it is the
wealthy countries that have the knowledge and resources to facilitate such a revolution in
transport, and some global leadership must come from these countries. However, recent pro-
gress in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) may mean that the real innovations
come from here or other emerging economies. Recent events illustrate the problems of finding
a global consensus for change at the international level (cf. Copenhagen, 2009; and Cancun,
2010, etc.), and this means that the onus for action has also moved to national, regional, sub-
regional and city governments to develop local strategies for carbon-efficient lifestyles, includ-
ing transport. The major problems at these more local levels are, however, in implementing
strategies of sufficient scale and innovation to contribute significantly to (inter)nationally
