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.
•
•