The onset of such a level of crisis in transport at the start of the 21st century in an advanced industrial society deserves some thought and analysis. There are some immediate surprises. First, the sheer vulnerability of the system as a whole has come as a shock to almost everyone, not least politicians. How is it possible for things to grind to a halt so quickly? A combination of complex lifestyles making demands on transport systems that would have been undreamt of 30 years ago and an industry shaped by market-driven, ideological dogma has pushed us into perpetual crisis. All transport professionals repeat the mantra that growth in demand for travel is a sign of economic progressŠ but is it? Is it not rather more of a sign of thoughtless consumption where distance becomes an end in itself? Is there any real reason for, or gain from, increases in distance travelled each year? If we base our post-modern lifestyle on spatial separation, long distances, complex multi-purpose trips, fossil fuel energy and tight time budgets then we have created a system that is intensely vulnerable. We are now reaping the whirlwind of that vulnerability.

What about the weather? The floods that have caused such widespread disruption have once again initiated a discussion about global warming and climate change. Predictably scientists, journalists and politicians have reminded us about the great floods and winds of 1703 which then leads (illogically) to the conclusion that there is no link with global warming. Global warming is unlikely to be demonstrated through some formal mathematical proof in a way that convinces skeptics that (a) it exists and (b) it is caused by fossil fuel burning in which transport plays a prominent role. Does the absence of this proof mean it does not exist? Given that the consequences of climate change are so awesome it is incumbent on us to make judgments based on the best available evidence and then to act accordingly (the so-called Precautionary Principle), rather than pursue the 'Ostrich Principle' of ignoring the evidence in the hope that it will remain unproven and go away. This conundrum still draws blood in political debates with government heavily in thrall to the will of business and terrified of annoying aviation, oil, gas and car interests. There isn't even an intelligent debate and government finds it very hard indeed to say that we should move steadily in the direction of reducing fossil fuel dependency. This has prepared the ground very nicely for the next crisis.

Truckers, farmers and others with strong views that the route to Utopia can be opened up through cheap petrol and diesel have very successfully thrown the government on the defensive. No one in government is prepared to go on the offensive and spell out just exactly what kind of gridlock, smog ridden cities and asthmatic children we will purchase with all this cheap fuel. More worryingly government ministers up to their waists in floods are still reluctant to make the glaringly obvious connection between the floods, climate change, cheap fuel and the future. Of course there would be an argument and there is scientific controversy but all that applies even more so with far more worrying consequences in the opposite (cheap fuel) scenario. Do we really need to reduce the cost of lorry trips that transport huge amounts of goods from one end of the country to the other and then back again in the pursuit of logistic efficiency? Do we really need to drive children to school or to drive to shops and workplaces that are within a 20 minute walk or bike ride? What kind of society do we want to build and what kind of future awaits the old, the young, those who don't want to drive, those who can't drive and those who want a city that is a little bit different to the dirty, smelly dangerous ones currently on offer.

The most dramatic failure of all and one that runs through all three crises is the abject failure of government, business and many individuals to make the links. It is possible to have a strong economy, reduced vulnerability to transport shocks and oil crises, better quality of life, healthy cities and healthy people. We can even make sure we reduce the probabilities of severe weather events. All we have to do to get to this desirable situation is provide transport choices, encourage lifestyles that are not locked into car dependency and move away from fossil fuel dependency. More importantly if we are to avoid the really big crises we have to move towards a global consensus that a planetary vehicle population of 2.5 billion by 2030 is simply not desirable. This is and will be a severe test of local and global political institutions and the outcome is by no means clear.

John Whitelegg
Editor
World Transport Policy and Practice