The Future of Transport: stargazing and guiding principles

October 2010

Michelle Di Leo, Austin Williams, and Yvonne Hübner will be in conversation with the Salon audience.

When Mancunians roundly rejected a new transport plan in 2008, Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester’s city council said 'There is no plan B, which is why we will have to have a period of reflection'. The plan would have made £3billion of funding available for transport improvements: much of it borrowed against future revenue from a proposed rush-hour congestion charge. The voters of Manchester, it appeared, were in no mood to have to foot the bill for improvements funded through a tax on driving.

Making transport system changes is rarely a straightforward process. Our transport systems are complex and engineers are locked into an infrastructure designed for a previous age. Proponents of the Manchester transport plan claimed that the city has the slowest-moving traffic in England. In built-up areas, there is clearly an acceptable limit to how many extra roads can be built. Many agree that public transport services need to become more frequent, less crowded and more reliable. And that means spending money. While nobody likes paying higher fares or more tax, that may be just the kind of uncomfortable choice that needs to be made.

More broadly, on top of concerns about congestion and worries about safety, changing cultural attitudes mean that for many mobility itself is no longer an unquestioned good: cars are frowned upon; aviation deemed too carbon intensive, trains too expensive, and space travel simply pointless. We are urged to consider other alternatives: whether it is restricting car use in favour of cycling or reducing unnecessary journeys through stay-at-home tele-conferencing. Local government supports car pooling schemes and energy-efficient transport. The idea of environmental taxes to fund new infrastructure and penalize transport use has widespread support.

Should politicians be unashamed about arguing for the funding required to make travel easier if that is what the voters want? Or do they, and we all, have a responsibility to curb our enthusiasm for rapid transport: in the interests of both the environment and just slowing down the pace of life a little? The technology now exists to make what were once the dreams of science fiction a reality: jet-packs; hydrogen powered cars; Maglev public transport; and automated highways. Yet we have much more modest transport ambitions today in which high-speed rail links come only but slowly and at the price of new runways. What do we make of this apparent irony? What future for transport in the 21st century?

What are today's guiding principles shaping our future vision, and what needs to be done to benefit the next generation? This session provides speakers and attendees the opportunity to do a little star gazing, and even be a little adventurous about the transport of the future.

Listen again (not miked so variable quality)...

Photo of the discussion