Robin Hickman

The Future of London 2062: Transport Pathways and Strategic Choices

Dr Robin Hickman Bartlett School of Planning, UCL r.hickman@ucl.ac.uk

The Central Problem "If there is such a thing as growing human knowledge, then we cannot anticipate today what we shall know only tomorrow ‌ no scientific predictor - whether a human scientist or a calculating machine - can possibly predict, by scientific methods, its own future results."

Popper, K.R. (1961) The Poverty of Historicism

Two Looming Environmental Issues..

Our short term and (certainly) long term future travel behaviours are likely to change dramatically in the next decades.

• •

Climate change: an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 – how is this achieved?

Oil scarcity: the International Energy Agency (2009) projects that there are ‘just 46 years left’ of [conventional] oil consumption, assuming proven reserves and current consumption rates. There are also non-conventional oil resources – Canadian, Venezuelan, Russian tar sands, etc.

BUT, despite 30 years of (often ad-hoc) effort in promoting sustainable transport, the vast majority of contemporary travel is still by the private motor car. Largely powered by a common technology and power source: the four stroke cycle engine, fuelled by petrol or diesel.

LONDON: Outer London and non radial trips are still very car (and oil) dependent; many short trips carried out by the car (school run, shopping, leisure trips)

Backcasting • Baseline and projection • Alternative scenario(s) of the future • Policy measures and packages available • Appraisal, costing, optimum pathways A normative approach: where should we be? and how do we achieve this?

VIBAT-London

London: The Baseline (Transport Only)

TC-SIM London

Local Version 03

tcsim.html

Web Version 03

www.vibat.org/vibat_ldn/tcsim3/tcsim.html tcsim topgear

Discuss and ‘Optimise’ the Strategy

Discuss and ‘Optimise’ the Strategy

2062 Scenarios 2A. Scenario Matrix

S1.

S2.

S3.

S4.

* Use two major trends/uncertainties to develop scenario dimensions

2062 Scenarios 2A. Scenario Matrix Technological change: high

S1.

Sustainable city stewardship: low, remains conjecture

S3.

S2.

S4.

Sustainable city stewardship: high - Government

- Public

* Use two major trends/uncertainties to develop scenario dimensions

Technological change: low, or mis-directed

Beyond to 2062: Orwellian Perpetual Motion (S1)?

High technological change, but little environmental stewardship

Increased mobility, largely individual-based, but clean vehicles – the increased distances travelled offset much of the CO2 reduction gain from cleaner cars – and the city is unattractive for living

DTI Foresight, Foster and Partners (2006)

Beyond to 2062: Hobbesian Urban Sustainability (S2)?

High technological change, and high environmental stewardship

High density, green built environment design, high investment in public transport, walking and cycling and the public realm

DTI Foresight, Foster and Partners (2006)

New International Air Capacity in London: Does this Fit? Three potential policy approaches: 1. Do we stumble on with failing to provide increased capacity around London? (the dominant policy position) 2. Cater for projected demand? (current political considerations ..)

3. Or - think of other ways to accommodate long distance travel that might have less impact on the environment (CO2 emissions)? - HSR

New International Air Capacity in London: Does this Fit? Bows, A. and Anderson, K. (2006) Policy clash: can projected aviation growth be reconciled with the UK Government’s 60% carbon reduction target? Transport Policy, 14, 2007, pp. 103-110.

• Since 1960, global air passenger traffic (revenue passenger-km) has increased by nearly 9% per annum – and expected to continue by 5% per annum from 2000-2015.

• In 2003, ~200 million passengers passed through UK airports; projected to rise to 400-600 million passengers by 2030 (DfT, 2004) – if sufficient capacity is provided (2 or 3 additional runways in the South East and unconstrained capacity in the regions).

THE PROBLEM: aviation will account for 50-112% of the UK carbon budget by 2050 (Bows and Anderson, 2006), under varying assumptions, best to worst case if unconstained demand is catered for. Use of kerosene likely to remain the major fuel for flying over next 20-40 years.

THE SOLUTION: continue with current approach – ’fail’ to provide additional capacity?

Conclusions?

•

Developing our understanding of the social and cultural aspects behind travel: “Cars will not easily be given up just (!) because they are dangerous to health and life, environmentally destructive, based on unsustainable energy consumption, and damaging to public life and civic space. Too many people find them too comfortable, enjoyable, exciting, even enthralling. They are deeply embedded in ways of life, networks of friends and sociality, and moral commitments to family and car for others.” Sheller (2004)

•

Ambitious strategic policy ambitions (CO2 reduction) not likely to be delivered (on current progress) – lots of conjecture, not enough focus and consistency in spending profiles (e.g. vehicle emission profiles, public transport, cycling, urban structure, international air).

Transport investment required that helps achieve societal goals: environmental and wider city design, social and economic objectives.

Participatory elements critical – people need to be able to choose their future travel lifestyles, ideally consistent with policy goals.

•

•