‘Sustainability’ is now a key element in shaping transport policy – especially in Britain. In theory this prompts a sensible seeming test of whether a proposal can be sustained beyond its introduction. But the practical value of that test depends on how ‘sustainability’ is defined, and who sets the range of factors to be considered. Currently, the prevailing definition of what is ‘sustainable’ among UK policy-makers is summarised by Sustrans . For them, transport is only sustainable if it can exist “within the means of the planet to both create the resources needed to create and fuel all modes of transport, and absorb the waste from their creation and use.” What they fail to define is how the capacity of the planet is quantified or consider whether such transport modes and amenities are sustainable in economic and social terms. Anyway, In practice, ‘Sustainability’ as defined by the likes of SUSTRANS has become a test of goodness for choosing how transport problems should be addressed. Correspondingly, walking and cycling are almost invariably considered to be the most ‘sustainable’ modes and cars are the least. But as is often the case with transport policy development the gap between prevailing theory and practice is vast and impedes tangible progress in tackling the most widespread problems…In practice 98% of all UK trips are not made on foot or by bicycle. Put simply, this shows that the movement of most people and goods is, in reality as distinct from theory, not sustained by use of ‘sustainable’ modes. And no matter what the theorists may say or believe this is not because Britain is a nation of slobs who are too lazy to do the decent ‘sustainable’ thing, it’s for the simple reason that the people and businesses on which the nation depends does not see them as the best way to meet the vast majority of their transport needs. Conversely, 85% of all passenger journeys are by car and the rest is by privately owned ‘public’ transport.
Nevertheless, our policy shapers relentlessly favour developments that better accommodate ‘sustainable’ modes and those that constrain or penalise use of the modes which in reality move most people and goods. Recipe for disaster? You bet…
Sustarns define ‘sustainable’ transport thus:
“Essentially for transport to be sustainable it must exist within the means of the planet to both create the resources needed to create and fuel all modes of transport, and absorb the waste from their creation and use.”
However laudable this outlook and basis for policy-making may seem, vogue reliance on it raises problems. Who decides the extent of the earth’s resources and the extent of waste it can or should absorb? Currently, in the ‘West’, the prospect of extracting the oil that almost certainly exists in abundance in Polar regions is not acceptable and therefore not included in our calculations of the Earth’s resources. But what if China or Russia or India for that matter disagree? And, How much sense or value is there in shaping plans for ‘sustainable’ motorised vehicle use while ignoring the ceaseless progression towards commercially viable zero emission vehicles that is currently in trian?
So, ‘Sustainability’ and ‘sustainable transport’ are terms used to describe a set of critieria that are widely believed to offer a coherant and meaningful guide for policy-making and implimentation. But beneath the surface of widely accepted definitions of what is sustainable lies a mares nest of problems. As is often the case, the devil is in the detail and the most critical details include such thorny issues as: Who decides what is sustainable? What is the extent of criteria included in determining whether a mode is sustainable? And perhaps most critically; How much do the deciders know about the full implications and benefits of ceaseless progress in the ever developing worlds of science and engineering?
Correspondingly, it is one small step with a Sustrans outlook to make judgements on the sustainability of the way all people and goods are transported. In turn this has sporned a new gauge to measure how well or badly food is transported, namely ‘food miles’. – In essence according to those with faith in the Sustrans view of the world the further food has been transported the worse it is on a number of environmental grounds.
However, in the real twenty-first century world, modern transport continues expanding the social, economic and health horizons for an ever increasing number of people. As a result of this reality, deciding what is sustainable just ain’t that simple. And once some thorough thinking is applied to this issue, as on the Guardian -Observer website for example, it is possible to see how far an overly simplistic view of what is ‘sustainable’ can divert us from optimum ways to asses the full costs and benefits of transport that is actually already sustained (without the inverted commas) in practice . An article entitled “How the myth of food miles hurts the planet” gives a taste of how and why.
So, the range of factors that determines whether transport is really and truly sustainable is greater than the attractively compact bundle that is often used in media coverage of the issue or policy shaping circles, and especially in the UK. In reality there are at least four categories of factors that determine whether a particular approach to solving transport problems is sustainable in the fullest and most useful sense of the term. These are: Environmental, Economic, Social and Political.
As ever on this platform for debate, informed comments with a basis in evidence and suggestions for informative links are always welcome…