Choices

It makes possible everything we do daily.  It expands our horizons.  It enriches our lives, both personally and professionally.  We may not have the ‘right’ to today’s mobility but it certainly has transformed the lives of the post-war generations.   More than elsewhere in Europe, in Belgium mobility is also a source of our prosperity.  Tally it all up—the ports, logistics, automotive, public transport—and we are talking about a major proportion of the country’s economy and associated jobs.    Therefore, we ought to do it well; we ought to lead the world when it comes to moving things and people in an efficient, sustainable and intelligent manner.

But the challenges are indisputable.  The growth in our mobility is unsustainable in a business-as-usual scenario.  Under this scenario to 2030(1), which assumes strong growth in hybrid/electric cars, CO2 emissions will keep growing in the decades ahead –this while we are being asked to commit to drastic reductions.   Europe has committed to 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (this may increase to 30% if a global deal is reached this year at Copenhagen).  And in preparation for the Copenhagen meeting, the G8 group of industrialised countries recently announced that they will commit to an 80% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050.  Clearly, efficiency measures alone will not do.  Deep, structural change in the transport system is required.  Inevitably, this will entail a much stronger commitment to an electrified transport system (rail, light-rail, electric cars), which in turn must rely on renewable sources (wind, solar, biomass) and, as is likely, nuclear power.

The second major challenge pertains to the limitations of our transport infrastructure.  Our existing infrastructure cannot cope with the volume of traffic—both people and goods.  Congestion is bad today.  By 2030 it will be far worse.  Mobility, in other words, is under threat.  While in one sense this is a problem of volume (i.e. too much traffic), some experts argue that the overall design of our infrastructure is out of sync with today’s transport needs.  It is not simply a matter of expanding capacity here and there, for example by adding extra lanes on existing motorways.  Instead, structural change is required.  Specifically, in people transport the major structural change is the growth in ‘interregional’ traffic, in particular the interregional commute.   Similarly in goods traffic, the problem is that the sea ports are growing faster than the rate at which the transport network can drain those growing volumes of goods away to the hinterland.  

The solutions to these infrastructure problems exist.  Some are beginning to be implemented but many exist only on paper.  To address the interregional commute the public transport operators need to expand capacity (SNCB) and develop new lines (De Lijn, STIB) at breakneck speed.   Also, some experts argue that new roads (interregional connections) need to be built, taking lessons from our Dutch neighbours.  In goods transport the proposed solution is to ‘extend’ the gateways deeper into the hinterland, by pushing goods in bulk via rail and inland waterways to inland terminals—around which clusters of logistical activity will develop.   In the longer term, a more radical approach will probably be needed, such as the development of tubular (underground) container transport. 

All the proposed solutions to our mobility challenges require (public) money and plenty of it.  This is problematic given the budgetary constraints this country’s governments find themselves in.   Therefore, at one level the mobility question is about the strategic choices we make as a society.  More taxes (impossible!) or cuts elsewhere (never!).   Some money is obviously available, partly within government budget and partly outside via public private partnership.  Here the point is to deliver return on those investments.  In logistics this is likely to be an increasingly contentious debate, given the increasingly vocal objections made by some of the country’s leading economists.  

In the people movement the question of ROI is more philosophical.  It is about protecting our ‘right’ to mobility.  It is about letting the baby boomers enjoy a mobile retirement.  It is about being able to combine so much more in any given day.  It is, quite simply, about letting go of our proverbial ‘kerktoren’ (church spire).

While the extended Gateway plan and the regional transport networks are solutions adapted to today’s traffic patterns, the longer term component of the solution is spatial planning.  This is difficult work.  We do not have the institutions and government set-up for it.  Even culturally we do not seem to be amenable to disciplined spatial planning.  The uniform housing development in the Netherlands is not for us.  But like it or not we better start learning how.  The lesson here is quite simple: concentrate development around multimodal transport hubs.

Finally, we need to innovate.  We need to innovate because we have to—mobility in this country is under threat.   On the other hand, we should innovate because the opportunity is, quite simply, tremendous.  Globally speaking, we are a transport ‘hotspot’—we should be showing the world what the future of transport is all about.  Much is possible, but a good place to start would be to get our transport stakeholders talking and working together, properly, constructively, with ambition

(1)Federal Planning Bureau. Langetermijnvooruitzichten voor transport in België: referentiescenario. 24/04/2009.