SUSTAINABILITY
Stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Airport expansion and HS2 are two of the most emotive subjects in transport right now, says Roger Gardner, who looks at the task faced by government in progressing them
T
he environment is a political football – we all know that. Travel, along with power generation and habitat preservation, is perhaps one of the
three biggest areas of controversy. It is worth reflecting, however, what that means for the real work of solving one of our most intractable sustainability challenges. Powered travel is generally energy intensive, it uses significant amounts of land and it causes noise and air pollution. In other words, it either affects our quality of life adversely or it threatens to do so. Here in the UK we have two of the hottest
transport potatoes imaginable. The High Speed 2 (HS2) rail project and airport expansion in the South East have become rallying points for those pro- and anti-development. Too often the rhetoric is centred on the environment but not in an objective way. Media hype about impacts and costs to the individual linked to loss of peace and quiet, or even a roof over your head, uses environmental evidence as a weapon. Nuggets of information from research and scientific assessment are taken out of context or exaggerated and the scientist can become the butt of criticism. Take the Heathrow situation where noise is a
key determinant in the battle over growth. Politicians are often tempted to mould policy around public reaction rather than the evidence and the law of the jungle can prevail: he who shouts loudest rules. Even the ‘evidence’ is affected by questionable methodologies. There is a growing debate about the validity of ‘noise affected population’ contours as an indicator of disturbance and new ways are being sought to understand how people weigh and judge the benefits and pitfalls of living near airports. The scientists themselves often risk unwarranted criticism for exploring and challenging the status quo
“ Regular business travellers will have views about HS2 and airport
capacity – perhaps more than most – but bear the environment in mind as you air those thoughts
” 60 THE BUSINESS TRAVEL MAGAZINE
ability to grow economically raise emotional reactions”
“Decisions that bear upon our
favoured by vested interests and for stepping into the ring. In such a febrile atmosphere, how should the government react? In the aviation case, it is looking at establishing
an independent aircraft noise authority to try and remove some of the political heat. With the Airports Commission delivering its views on capacity this autumn, the case for retaining focus on the evidence will be even stronger. HS2 is another prime example where emotion
plays as strongly in the debate as evidence. The logic of an evidence-based approach is that there will be convergence upon a solution that should be accepted by rational people. The reality is that the costs and benefits fall to different communities. Towns and villages along the route will suffer
the loss of land and the noise while those at either end of the line will reap the rewards. We look at and experience the ‘evidence’ at different scales: micro and macro are not always comparable and cannot be easily conflated into a neat solution with which everyone will agree. So where does this leave us? Yes, evidence is important and it should be at the core of decision-making about transport infrastructure. There is an increasing trend towards the monetisation of impacts, for instance, the value of loss of amenity, health or even life is weighed
against the positive economic value of an activity. But that is cold, economically sterile territory. Decisions that bear upon our way of life, our ability to grow economically or be healthy all raise emotional reactions. We look at how a proposal affects us first
then at the ‘third party’ effects upon others, the country as a whole or even the future of the planet. We might objectively recognise, at the back of our minds, that it would be best for the UK in the long run to have HS2 or a new Heathrow runway but can we ignore the short- term harm and ongoing disturbance? Almost certainly not. Much as we might dislike the politicisation of the environmental debate, it is perhaps the only realistic means by which we yo-yo towards acceptable outcomes. Governments have to wade through tortuous
and expensive steps, weigh up the pros and cons, and then reach decisions. While we have to trust that the evidence on environmental impacts is given proper attention, it is important to voice our opinions and, like it or not, that is part of the politicisation of the environment. Regular business travellers will have views about HS2 and airport capacity – perhaps more than most as we all bear the brunt of creaking infrastructure – but bear the environment in mind as you air those thoughts. After all, we are much a part of the problem as the solution.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76