After the revolution?

Is there any hope that greater social equality, dignity, and a people-centric low-carbon mobility future awaits us beyond the pandemic? Or is a revolution needed because the system is too badly broken?

This article is a writeup of the tenth PTRC Fireside Chat that took place on 28 May 2021. The event was a truly global conversation across continents that set out to explore what a cocktail of pandemic, digital age and climate crisis means for transport on this planet. There is appetite for change for the better and yet the existing social structures across countries and cultures serve the few at the expense of the many.

The big winner from the pandemic is set to be the car, risking a reinforcement of longstanding transport-related problems. What will it take to bring forward a new era of mobility that breathes life into our cities and communities for everyone as we face the existential threat from climate change? It may be that the only course of action is revolution. This is not the revolution politicians and technologists love to talk of when it comes to technological innovation in transport promising to make everything better (and making money). It’s a revolution of hearts, minds and actions of the people. Those who should be at the centre of ‘building back better’ from the pandemic.

You can watch the full recording of the event on YouTube. As this write-up reveals, the global shock of COVID-19 offers no guarantee that our new normal is going to be more equitable and sustainable.

Headlines

If you're in a hurry, here are the headline messages:

• The world of 2019 and before seems like a distant memory, and one which is perhaps fading.
• In some parts of the world, the informal economy dominates in which people have little choice but to rely upon available mobility in pursuit of their day to day requirements for basic needs.
• Current infrastructure continues to serve the car at the expense of wider multi-modal opportunity to support the needs of the majority and under-privileged.
• Essential workers are essential to all of us and they rely upon more than the promise of the car, electric or otherwise for their mobility.
• There can be an implementation gap between what is needed or promised and what is delivered when it comes to sustainable transport.
• Are we to remain perpetually caught in a cycle of optimism and disappointment when it comes to making transport more sustainable and better able to support a fair and dignified society?
• A better outlook for sustainable transport is not about finding the right technical solutions but about being able to implement solutions that respond to and support the needs of the majority.
• With the global problem of climate change, there is not yet a global movement of change to address this in transport.
• Electric vehicles appear to be the easiest political answer to addressing transport without apparent appreciation of the wider systemic problems of which the car is a part.
• Is ‘Transport’s Hierarchy of Greed’ standing in the way of the change that is needed?
• Restoring greater equality, greater dignity, greater opportunity to thrive in healthy, sustainable ways calls for fundamental socio-political change.
• When inequality and lack of dignity create sufficient discomfort across enough people, revolution may be coming.
• It may well take revolution to see the change that is needed to address inequality and climate change.

Our panel

We had an outstanding panel for this Fireside Chat comprised of: Sarika Panda Batt, Juan Antonio Carassco, Robin Chase, Emmanuel Mogaji and Kate Mackay, representing insights and perspectives from India, Chile, United States, Nigeria and Australia.

Setting the scene

In this tenth event in the Fireside Chat series we brought a truly international panel together with our international audience to examine the global shock of COVID-19 and ask “where now for transport?”.

 Nose dive?

Before the pandemic, and with the exception of a few small kinks in the long-run trend due to other crises, airline passengers carried globally was only going one way – inexorably upwards, and steepening. According to the World Bank the global number of passengers carried annually passed 1 billion in 1990 and had reached 4.4 billion in 2019. Then it fell off a cliff. According to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), passengers carried in 2020 dropped by 60%. This corresponds to a 66% reduction in the number of seats offered by airlines. But will data points for 2020 and 2021 appear no more than a blip in the trend when we look back in 10 years’ time?

Flying high

Aviation’s inexorable rise had been running in parallel with a change from almost no-one globally in 1990 using the Internet to over 4.6 billion internet users at the start of 2021 according to Statistica; with over a billion broadband subscriptions according to the World Bank. Unlike the cliff that aviation fell off when the pandemic arrived, Internet use climbed a mountain. The BBC must have been delighted with coining its news headline “UK internet use doubles in 2020 due to pandemic”. The number of internet users in Nigeria has reportedly increased by over a fifth between January 2020 and January 2021.

 Look closer

Headline numbers can be deceiving and mask massive disparities internationally. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center in 2019 the proportion of 18-29 year olds who use the internet at least occasionally or report owning a smartphone ranges from 100% in Australia, the US and UK to 65% in Nigeria and 57% in India. For those aged 50+ the range is more stark: from above 80% for Australia, the US and UK to 31% for Nigeria and 18% for India.

And when we come back to aviation, recent research from Norway indicates that “the great majority of the global population, nearly 90 per cent, hardly ever board an airplane” with only 11% taking a flight in 2018 and only 4% travelling abroad.

Both down but who’s getting back up?

What about down on the ground? According to the TomTom Traffic Index that reports on traffic congestion in over 400 cities around the world, there was, unsurprisingly, a – quotes - “huge drop in urban congestion levels around the world”. Compared to 2019, in 2020 Boston had 42% less traffic; New York had 30% less, as did Santiago. London had 18% less, New Delhi 16%, and Brisbane 12%. No Index data for Lagos.

This may speak to cars but at the same time we have seen public transport (and those dependent upon it) punished by the pandemic or at least by governmental response in many countries, in spite of lack of clarity over whether or not the public transport environment is strongly associated with virus transmission.

But where is all this heading as an inequitable global vaccination programme seeks to tame the virus and we look to a post-COVID future?

Latest data from the UK Department for Transport shows that as of 24 May 2021, car traffic in Britain has grown back to over 90% of the pre-pandemic level of early February 2020. Meanwhile, bus use inside and outside London is still more than a third less and train use (National Rail and the London Underground) more than half less than pre-pandemic levels.

Car-led recovery?

As we emerge from the pandemic, we face global economic challenges but looming large (even if seemingly still in the blind spot of many) is a climate emergency. There is therefore talk of a green recovery from COVID-19.

As the energy transition edges forwards for motor traffic, one could be forgiven for thinking that the global motor industry is sitting smugly – use of cars and vans is bouncing back and motor manufacturers, it could appear, are parading themselves as the green saviours of the planet as opposed to the villains as electric vehicles join their showrooms.

Digital connectivity seems here to stay and may have irrevocably changed the prospects for commuting, and domestic and international business travel.

Will public transport, micromobility and active travel find their place in the green recovery?

Which transport modes are going to be the winners and which the losers in the years ahead? And will such fortunes bode well or badly for reducing social inequality and drawing down CO2 emissions from the transport sector?

Politics and people power

There is volatility in geopolitics to contend with too as we move towards the United Nations 2021 Climate Change Conference, COP26, in November. And transport, with its importance to the economy, is never far away. Consider for example in Chile where it was a fare hike on the Satiago Metro that sparked protests across the country in 2019 about high levels of inequality. In the referendum that resulted, nearly 80% of people voted to rewrite the country’s constitution. Earlier this month an election took place for places on the Constitutional Convention – the body that will write a new constitution to put to the public vote. “Government-backed candidates have only secured about a fourth of the seats” we are told.

So much to contemplate about what the future has in store when we ask ‘where now for transport?’. And what better way now to proceed with such contemplation than to move to our international panel representing Australia, Nigeria, the United States, Chile and India.

Global perspectives

Each of our panellists began with a set of opening remarks.

Brisbane, Australia – an uncertain outlook rooted in car dependence

“Just when you think things are settled, up in the air they go again” remarked Kate, reflecting upon a new outbreak of cases of COVID-19 in the state of Victoria in Australia. She is very mindful of uncertainty, and the need for adaptability and flexibility in how we look to the future. As a country, Australia and its population of around 25 million is very diverse with huge differences between and within states. Kate wanted to focus particularly upon where she is based in Brisbane, Queensland. She acknowledged it is rather hard to remember now what 2019 looked like. There was a launch of e-scooters in November 2018 which have been a huge success; and Mobility as a Service was emerging as a new prospect. 2019 was about national and international travel. It was easy to run a travel survey in 2019; there was increasing public transport patronage and increasing population.

So, what has changed since? Australia closed its international borders on 20 March 2020. Compared to before COVID-19, there is an even more widely held view that Australia is the best country in the world to be living now. In Brisbane, life has been largely back to normal. In this sense, compared to other parts of the world, the impact from the pandemic has been much less. That said, there have been some significant changes. Working from home has gone from being rather unusual to more normalised. Activity in Central Business Districts is down with efforts now to encourage people back. There has been a huge increase in telehealth services. There is greater use of public spaces. Road traffic is back to pre-COVID levels but public transport patronage is down.

With a census due later in 2021, the jury is out as to where Australia might be heading. Nevertheless, the context for Australia is high car ownership with the proportion of households without a car decreasing – its only 7%. “The proportion of households with three or more cars is going up” says Kate, while “uptake of electric vehicles is incredibly low” (and there is also a distance-based charge for their use being introduced). Hybrid working seems here to stay and life is governed by QR code scanning to track where people are. In transport planning terms, there is growing interest and capability in vision-led planning and decision making under uncertainty.

I was struck by Kate’s final mention of the prospect that Queensland may host the Olympics in 2032 and how far away that seems compared to 2019 which we can hardly remember. Where on earth will global developments be at in 11 years’ time and how do you plan for such a major event in the face of that uncertainty?

Lagos, Nigeria – an informal economy dependent on road transport

Emmanuel took us to Lagos, the second largest metropolitan area in Africa, with a population of around 20 million (not far short of the entire population of Australia). Lagos is the biggest economic city in Nigeria. There is a lot of pressure on facilities in the city and Emmanuel stressed the developing nature of the city as an important context, with its growing population. There is huge reliance on road transportation, while the built environment has little provision for cycling or for the e-scooters enjoying popularity in Brisbane. In contrast to the ‘big ideas’ being talked about internationally for the future of mobility, the realities in Lagos need to be recognised. Emmanuel highlighted “the informal economy in that part of the world whereby everybody needs to go out to go and work for something they will eat today”. Not going out to work may mean not even having something to eat so pursuit of basic needs puts pressure on the road infrastructure.

What does a prospect of working from home mean in Lagos? Electricity and internet availability are not stable so there is more appeal to go to a place of work outside the home where better facilities exist, again putting pressure on the road infrastructure. He went on to suggest that “policies are often being made for election purposes” with no continuity in policy direction which is challenging and affects the level of private investment where private sector confidence is low in having certainty about public sector direction and support. There is interest in technology-enabled and supported mobility such as smart cards but the challenge is putting in place the infrastructure to support this.

Emmanuel considers a key issue is the need to understand behaviour and travel patterns which in turn means a need for data – together this would hold the prospect for transferring insights into policymaking with a hope that this can then be implemented.

Boston, USA – an awakening to the divisiveness of privilege

Robin reflected back on some striking issues in the USA – from the changes in President to the profound divisiveness seen and with very different world views allied to the urban and rural divide. “People are living in different lives with different realities” says Robin moving on to highlight the rise of Black Lives Matter and with “equality and racial justice issues front and centre”. Such issues are now much more prominent.

Looking back to before the pandemic, Robin touches upon the developments in shared mobility and expresses her excitement about the potential of electric micromobility, the changing perspective on active transportation and what these could unlock. She has, for 20 years, looked at urban transportation through the lens of climate change. Robin saw how COVID-19 has exposed vulnerability of those dependent upon the car or upon public transport when these are compromised as means of going about your daily life. She is particularly taken by the idea of the essential worker – those assuring continuity for others of health, sanitation, food acquisition (essential requirements for life). “Essential workers were largely getting to work using public transportation” she says, and when it went into free-fall it put the spotlight on the centrality of public transport to low income workers and in turn to all of us.

While she saw pilots of roadspace reallocation in cities in the US, she is conscious of and concerned by how readily human beings may be poised to move back to the status quo. She sees an urgency to avoiding this and finding the political will to take forwards changes for the better we may have seen during COVID-19. Robin has also become very aware of how our society and infrastructure is designed for the car – which is ironic when “we have 50% of the population at any given moment that doesn't have a driver's licence doesn't have access to a car, or doesn't have the money to spend on fixing that car, or putting fuel in that car”. She wants to see an awakening in people that our system of movement has to be more resilient and multi-modal to support the majority at different times in their lives.

It struck me that there was some awakening now perhaps to the divisiveness in society arising from privilege. Society and its infrastructure and services have been and risk continuing to be shaped by the minority at the expense of the needs of the majority. A better outlook for transport is not about finding the right technical solutions but about being able to implement solutions that respond to and support the needs of the majority.

Concepción, Chile – a revolution, political crisis and pandemic bringing change

“It’s been like a century since 2019 I think for everyone, and especially in the case of Chile” began Juan. Chile has experienced three shockwaves in quick succession: public revolution, a political and constitutional crisis and then COVID-19. In 2019 up until October, Chile was getting ready to host COP25 with focus upon the scientific understandings including the agenda for addressing transport. Then, in October there was a small rise in subway fares in Santiago – perhaps a quarter of a dollar, “very small even for Chilean standards” he says, “but that was the last drop in the glass” in terms of a country with great social inequality. What followed was what Juan considers a revolution, albeit not a very violent one (as mentioned in my introduction). It started in the subway system and while not a revolution simply about subway fares, it nevertheless highlighted how intertwined transport is with wider crises. The revolution lasted from mid-October to mid-November and “as a society, we really didn’t know what to do” says Juan. Chileans experienced their first lockdowns (curfews) pre-COVID as attempts were made to control public protest. This political crisis prompted wider reflection on what was happening in the country in terms of dignity and equity and how cities and rural areas were being developed. In November, the product of the unrest was an agreement to hold a referendum on whether a new constitution for the country was needed. Meanwhile it was deemed not possible to host COP25 which was moved to Madrid.

Then COVID-19 arrived in March 2020 and Chile has been one of the countries that has experienced the most locking down. The issues of inequality and lack of dignity started to become even more prominent as a result of the pandemic. It was found for example that 80% of the wealthiest 20% could telework, while only 20% of the poorest 20% could telework. And transportation is a huge dimension of the inequality with half of households not owning a car and reliant on public transport, often in sprawling city contexts.

This succession of events in Chile raised more and more contradictions and concerns about Chilean society. As noted in the introduction, the vast majority of Chileans have voted for the development of a new constitution. Elections a couple of weeks ago to allocate places on the body to write a new alternative constitution involve a majority of individuals standing who do not belong to a political party. The new agenda they are bringing to the constitution is that of climate crisis, of dignity and of questioning the foundations of development seen over the last 30-40 years.

Taking all this together, Juan recognises a deep sense of uncertainty over where all these powerful dynamics will take Chile in the future. Yet he is also optimistic about these dynamics offering hope for the future. In closing his introduction, he wanted to highlight that in, at the moment, smaller ways, similar socio-political dynamics are being seen elsewhere in South America – in Columbia, in Argentina.

Delhi, India – the implementation gap to delivering sustainable transport

Looking at pre- and post-pandemic, Sarika sees similarities with the insights from elsewhere in the world, while noting distinctive points about India. Working from home which has surged in some parts of the global population doesn’t work in a country where 95% of the workforce is informal. “They are totally dependent on public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure” says Sarika. Yet in all the planning, decision making and design is more and more focus on car-oriented infrastructure – creation of cities dependent on cars. “Somehow there is a huge gap between the thought process, the ideas, the policies and implementation” she says. The country’s 2007 National Urban Transport Policy was about ‘move people, not vehicles’ yet in 2021 “we don't even have a basic infrastructure where a pedestrian can walk in a city”. Meanwhile, 98% of India’s infrastructure is built for cars when it has only 2% of global motor vehicles. Such motor vehicles bring air pollution and road traffic deaths – 10% of such deaths globally are in India Sarika says.

Of all the above, Sarika asks why? India has actively participated in the global discourses on sustainable transportation. She thinks the implementation gap when it comes to more sustainable transportation is huge. Policies may be in place, interest may exist, initiatives may be started but true implementation at the scale needed is often absent. This said, she is positive looking forwards – India is a developing country, and opportunity exists to improve. The Ministry of Urban Development following the arrival of COVID-19, launched the Cycle for Change and Streets for People programmes with more than 100 cities participating in efforts to have more city-centric, people-centric planning focused upon walking and cycling infrastructure and integration with public transport (instead of focusing on building more flyovers and underpasses for cars). There is a chance too to learn from other countries and their cities where they have been able to develop away from car-centricity. Nevertheless, motor vehicle sales (including two-wheelers) have gone up post-COVID because people still have to go to work; with many people pushed (further) into poverty in her country, Sarika says – not everyone can afford a car.

I wanted to remind the audience at this point that Sarika has been instrumental in the creation of Raahgiri Day in India across many cities – a movement to reclaim the streets from cars for people and active travel: “A day every week is dedicated to inviting people on those streets which are overpowered by car every day and made them experience their streets with activities like cycling, walking and performing arts”.

Wicked problems

I had a real sense from the round-the-world introductions of just how wicked the problems are that we are facing and trying to address. There is no ‘technology fix’ answer to these – restoring greater equality, greater dignity, greater opportunity to thrive in healthy, sustainable ways calls for fundamental socio-political change.

In the audience, John Carr had lamented the idea that electric vehicles are the answer to our transport problems. Roger Witte wondered what sense there was of a climate emergency across the different countries. From Portugal, Catarina Sales observed that the real winner from the pandemic seems to be the automobile – accentuated by interest in electrification. I wondered whether or not ‘we’re screwed’? I asked the panel whether they saw a real prospect for change coming out of the pandemic or whether we are to remain perpetually caught in a cycle of optimism and disappointment when it comes to making transport more sustainable and better able to support a fair and dignified society?

Balance of power in a world where electric cars are the answer

With the arrival of President Biden, Robin observes that “there's a real political commitment to address these twin issues of climate change, and inequality and racism in the US”. Yet she sees in the budget proposals the largest share is on transportation where a huge funding allocation is for electric vehicles. “When I look at that, it just, it makes me cry” she says. Cars that do exist should be electric, but “we are doubling down on climate and equity mess that cars brought to us”. She hopes that the people who run things do at least realise this, even if they feel it necessary to prioritise such an approach as part of making a more fundamental transition. Robin still questions how the political piece is addressed in the need to achieve the very dramatic change that is needed.

Juan could relate to Robin’s observations from the US. In Chile, just before the revolution, a political presumption was expressed that pursuit of electric vehicles was attractive because it was the easiest way to address the climate agenda. He sees therefore a need for a rebalancing of power. The north of Chile holds a substantial share of the world’s lithium that will be needed for electric vehicles and powerful players are circling this opportunity – “we cannot be na?ve about these dimensions of power” stresses Juan, the balance of power when it comes to electric vehicles and more widely in addressing the climate emergency is key. Funding support for people affected by COVID-19 has been enabled by Government through advances from pension plans. Yet many people when they got that advance purchased a car and Chile is now expecting a huge increase in car ownership. This again speaks to issues relating to balance of power.

I wondered - is the vehicle electrification sweet spot of economic recovery, playing to powerful vested private sector interests, and seemingly addressing the climate emergency too irresistible to allow for prospects of more fundamental change?

More pressing matters than a climate crisis

Meanwhile in Australia, Kate noted that not very much as yet is happening in terms of electric vehicles. The Government’s position nationally is that there will be no subsidies for EVs, unlike other countries where they have been taking off. The climate crisis really is a wicked problem in Australia. “In our last federal election, the party that got into power with a sizeable majority got in essentially on an anti climate change agenda” says Kate. Affordable housing is a much higher priority, according to a recent poll, than addressing climate change. “At the national level, the focus is very much on jobs and on the economy”.

Systems thinking not just selective policy announcements

I was minded to reflect upon the fact that even if the electric car is ‘the answer’ then in countries such as Australia and India where coal is still a major source of electricity production, the emissions problem is far from being fully addressed. Sarika pointed to the introduction of an electric vehicle policy in Delhi but confirmed that in India most electricity production is still based on coal power. She sees the need for greater attention to systems thinking, rather than jumping to conclusions that specific technological solutions like electric vehicles are ‘the answer’. The minister has announced that by 2030 all (new) vehicles will be electric, indicates Sarika. Yet she asks “where is the roadmap, where is the plan?”. There is a lot of informal electric mobility in India she explains, including most rikshaws becoming electric, with informal charging stations and private operators. Yet it is not clear what becomes of the batteries after their life span is over. Again it comes back to a lack of systems’ understanding and of a clearly mapped out strategy to address the whole system wherein electric vehicles are being hailed as ‘the answer’.

Is global change to rise to the global challenge of climate change possible?

In terms of the climate emergency, it was becoming apparent from the conversation that the global picture (which is ultimately what matters) is clouded by problems of balance of power, lack of systems thinking, lack of plans and implementation capacity, and other priorities that overshadow the emergency. Can we possibly reach the level of decarbonisation that is needed in the time that we have left as a global population? I wondered what Emmanuel could tell us of Nigeria in terms of the climate change agenda?

“You need to recognise what is that immediate need of the woman on the roadside that needs to get from point A to point B” says Emmanuel, “who cares about climate change when I am not even able to sustain myself to get the transport for tomorrow?” he goes on to ask. In the global agenda, Emmanuel believes there needs to be greater recognition that in some parts of the world awareness itself is lacking, let alone policies to address a climate emergency. He gives the illustration of electricity: “you don't even have enough electricity to power your freezer in the house, would you now use that electricity to power a car?” he asks, going on to point out that many people cannot even afford a car to put petrol in, let alone one powered by electricity. There needs to be enough electricity to go around even before talk of electric vehicles can begin. Meanwhile he believes that it is important to raise awareness of climate change so that people can consider whether and how other behaviours can emerge both the address the problem and meet their daily needs.

Looking for optimism

I was struck by the sense of national actions not necessarily equating to global action. There is great diversity internationally in the state of transportation and the awareness, appetite and means to address transport decarbonisation. Is the best answer to the global climate emergency for countries like the US and UK to focus upon their own decarbonisation or upon helping other nations accelerate their own plans? I’m not sure I see great optimism here if the inequality of the global vaccination programme for the pandemic is anything to go by. What did our panel have to say when it came to optimism for change of the sort the world needs?

 Is revolution the answer?

Robin explained that in recent years when talking to large audiences, she would end an event by asking people to shut their eyes and indicate their answer to the following question: “do you believe that we will address climate change and income inequality by evolving existing governments and existing companies, or do you think it will require a revolution to address these challenges?”. Whether students, venture capitalists, CEOs or governments, 80-90% of people would indicate that “it’s going to take a revolution to do it” she reflects, “and we know that revolutions are terrifying”. She looks from the US, to Europe, to Chile and to elsewhere and asks “can governments feel the palpability and the closeness of revolution in their streets and will that encourage them to move faster?”, or will the encouragement instead be to turn to dictatorship, to white supremacy status quo to put the lid on the prospect of revolution for a while longer to hold onto the balance of power? Let those thoughts from Robin sink in. In response she believes we need to find a way to heighten engagement and vocalisation of public wishes for change that signal what and who they are prepared to vote for.

I was drawn to asking our panel for a show of hands in response to Robin’s question – will we need a revolution? The image below shows how we responded.

Robin pointed out that the first time she asked her question was in a talk at the White House (under the Obama administration). She was addressing “the executive office staff, so all the young people between the ages of 25 and 40 who are working on US policy” as Robin explains. “With their eyes open 60% said it'll take a revolution, and that made me not sleep for three days” Robin concluded.

I invited Emmanuel to explain why his hand had not been put up. He was torn by his experience between the UK and Nigeria. For Nigeria, he is not yet convinced it would be in the electorate’s agenda in Nigeria to revolt in support of addressing climate change, in response to Robin’s question.

Reform, momentum for change and revolution

Sarika believes total reform is needed in India’s political system and in it’s the country’s governance when it comes to climate change and inequality. Especially in India it is the poor who are (to be) the victims of climate change. The question is how to improves the lives of the poor, how to attend to the needs of 90% of the population not the other 10% more privileged part of the population. Derk van der Laan in the audience wondered if social movements like Raahgiri Day in India were likely to gain momentum as a result of the pandemic. I asked Sarika if she could contemplate this. “Absolutely, yes, I can see a lot of opportunity in almost all Indian cities actually” she responded. She see the ‘developing’ aspect of India as an opportunity that may already have been lost in heavily car-centric cities elsewhere in the developed world. But seizing this opportunity needs greater political will and improved governance.

Turning back to Chile, Juan sees that the mainstream discourse of politicians has become irrelevant now in terms of technological solutions for tackling decarbonisation, as attention turns to aspects that more directly affect people’s lives (which may relate to climate change). Revolutions are for those who are uncomfortable or who suffer or fear suffering, he points out. Revolution seeks a rebalancing of power that can help address people’s discomfort and suffering and in how that is addressed will emerge the prospects for future transport and decarbonisation. I was left contemplating what forms revolution can take in bringing about momentum for change. Perhaps alongside the very visible and vocal revolution will also come quieter but powerfully cumulative changes in attitudes and behaviours that undermine the balance of power. And perhaps the ranks of the uncomfortable will have swelled globally as a result of the pandemic, and continue to swell as issues of inequality and climate change become more prominent.

What could good look like in terms of transport in 2030?

In the interests of looking for optimism within the current state of flux, I asked the panel to consider the question “if you had the power to make it happen, what would ‘good’ look like in terms of transport in 2030?”.

For Kate, her first priority would be to move attention away from only transport to much greater emphasis on access. She would then sharpen this up by prioritising equitable access to services and opportunities, with income no longer such a powerful determinant of access. She would want to see transport and land-use decisions made hand in hand. And decision-making would be much more vision-led rather than more narrowly on pursuit of, for example, growth targets. Kate would also with her power, like to see rail services in place across Australia to compete with air travel and green energy replacing coal fired power stations which have become a source of powering electric vehicles. She’s also promoted shared car use in circumstances when public or active transport is not the most suitable means of transport-based access.

Building upon Kate’s points, Robin would wish to see reallocation of space in dense urban areas by 2030 with safe networks for walking, biking in an environment “so people could truly live a multi-modal life”. This would mean a move from single occupancy cars to single occupancy electric micromobility, allied to a backbone of public transport. Sharing of rides would feature across people’s multi-modal lives, as would shared or public ownership of vehicles, in contrast to private ownership.

Sarika too sees shared, electric mobility as the future she wishes to create. Her guiding principle is “plan for the mass, not for the class” and in which multi-modal opportunities exist for the masses. She sees e-bikes as a potential game changer in a country where people cannot afford four-wheeled vehicles.

For Emmanuel, moving towards ‘good’ in future starts with awareness and engagement with where we are now and the recognition that we are not doing very well and can do better. This would lead he believes to small changes made by many as a conscious effort to do better. Alongside this, Emmanuel sees the importance of research and the insights from data needed to make better informed decisions on what to do, as opposed to only being guided by the hope of the next election win. He sees the need for infrastructure redesign with provision for safer and more commonplace active travel. Infrastructure improvements should extend beyond only those concerning transportation, allied to the wider notion of access in people’s lives.

Juan wanted to emphasise two words – public and dignity. In Chile there is much privatisation and yet the value of public (including public transport and public space) has come to be appreciated as the crises have hit the country. There is a need to recognise and address the importance of dignity – not only recognising and addressing the needs of those who are (already) comfortable, but of those who are not comfortable. He hopes public and dignity will be words that now act as political beacons as opposed to falling into the technological solutions and the traps of the past.

Final words

To wrap up, I asked our Panel for their one line takeaway messages. For Kate it is all about people. For Robin its about putting ways forwards in the terms of people’s struggles. Emmanuel believes its about everyone talking responsibility to bring about positive change. Sarika asks us all to walk the talk to bring about a paradigm shift. Juan encourages us not to be afraid of revolution.

I was struck by a question from Douglas Gilmore which has acted as my steer for choosing the title of this write-up: “Revolution ok, but then what?”. Even if the revolution becomes more widespread, what change becomes possible in the new balance of power that follows? There's still an awful lot of work to be done.

Postscript

During this Fireside Chat I had been noting some of the key themes and the day after the event I compiled my reflections into what I have called Transport’s Hierarchy of Greed (to be contrasted with Maslow’s Hierarch of Need). It seems to me that such a hierarchy is standing in the way of the change that is needed which is perhaps why there has been so much talk of the need for revolution during our Fireside Chat.