The 2050 from Brussels-Schuman

Norman Baker, British politician, at the Healt...
Norman Baker. Image via Wikipedia

The EU Transport White Paper sets out transport aspirations our political system is entirely incapable of delivering.

Norman Baker, the Lib Dem transport minister, gave a response to the new White Paper that was classic Bore at the Golf Club Bar. He said, and I paraphrase, “EU, eh? Brussels, eh? Banning cars? Crazy or what? Square bananas next, eh, you know what I mean? Eh? You couldn’t make it up!”

Although the reporting of the proposal (“British motorists will be outlaws in their own land“)┬ámade it seem as if the EU had decided it would unilaterally ban cars from city centres, possibly starting tomorrow, the real proposals were much more interesting, and much harder to deliver.

The White Paper looks at the future of transport in the EU over the next forty years (and that’s the context of wanting to phase out petrol-engined cars in favour of zero-emission cars by 2050). It also proposes a similar timescale for the shifting of half the longer passenger and freight journeys currently undertaken by road onto other forms of transport.

Even with no allowance for growth and increasing mobility, that is an enormous task – far greater than merely switching petrol-engined cars for electric, which might take a decade or fifteen years to do, depending on replacement cycles.

Think about the scale of the challenge. In 1952, car passengers made 58bn km of passenger journeys, while rail passengers made 38bn km. In 2009, rail passengers were making 61bn km of journeys, but car users were making 680bn. Let’s assume that some of the shorter road use shifts to electric vehicles, cycling and walking, and we only need to shift 33% of the passenger road kilometres to rail. That still means shifting 227bn km from road to rail, or almost quadrupling the number of km travelled by rail.

That means far more than building HighSpeed 2, 3 or 4 – it means a massive extension of rail and tram schemes into areas that haven’t seen them since the 1950s. It means reopening old connections, like the Lewes-Uckfield link in Mr Baker’s constituency, and quadrupling double track routes like Gatwick to Brighton. In towns, it means disruption building new tram routes to connect to rail, and closing roads to traffic to keep tram speeds high. It means – frankly – rural areas becoming less accessible, and cities becoming much more dense.

Personally, I think that’s preferable to the alternative of lower air quality, more climate change, and more congestion, but do we have the money or the political will to make any of these infrastructure changes happen? The timescales for High Speed 2 – fifteen years from plans to trains – show how much we need to do now to make change happen by 2050.┬áThe opposition around High Speed 2 is just a taster of what might happen if plans on this scale were carried out – particularly if they were done as oil prices and taxes soared, and petrol cars were being phased out amid screams of rage from the tabloids.

How do you start that national conversation – particularly starting from “straight bananas”?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Published by Anthony Zacharzewski

Anthony Zacharzewski was one of the founders of Demsoc in 2006. Before starting work for Demsoc in 2010, he was a Whitehall civil servant and a local government officer.

4 replies on “The 2050 from Brussels-Schuman”

  1. Hi, great post. Agree totally that intelligent conversations about any policy where the EU has a role is almost impossible in the UK.

    Also, thought you should know (if pingbacks aren’t working) that I cited your post in a comment on David Zaruk’s post on the EU’s decarbonisation targets for 2050. You are covering similar ground, so I thought I’d connect the dots.

  2. Thanks, mathew, and an excellent post by David. As you say over there, it’s a shame there isn’t more connectivity between the thinking on this.

    I thought David’s comment was particularly telling, saying that the Commission’s plans are looking more and more like an unconnected series of aspirations, and that they need a roadmap of roadmaps. I don’t want to fall prey to the old idea that “when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail”, but I do think that stronger EU-level debate and democracy would help bring shape and realism to what the Commission puts forward.

  3. Yep, I liked that line about roadmaps of roadmaps so much I tweeted it.

    The bloggingportal site goes some way to helping connect isolated posts on the same topic together, but much more could be done, I feel, in curating EU-oriented online conversations. If you have any ideas for this, add them here.

Comments are closed.