Travel time and speed

It’s neither one nor the other. My belief is that it’s probably constant. Human beings are subject to biological rhythms that necessitate periods of rest, which limit their ability to travel. This seemingly indicates a reduction in transport time. Meanwhile, modern technology has invented activities like television, which consume people’s time and compete with transport.

However, there is also a pull in the opposite direction. People have always felt the need to travel, to explore the universe around them and meet others. Even with only the most primitive means they were able to travel across oceans. In more recent times, thinkers and artists traveled incredible distances using the means of transport available at their epoch, which often lacked personal safety. Today’s rise in tourism is further proof of man’s natural desire to move. In some cases, the goal is the journey itself, not the destination.

The obvious answer is ‘no’. You only have to look at the debate over High Speed Rail Lines to be convinced of that. How many times have I heard the phrase “we’re not – or no longer - five minutes away!” But there is a contradiction between rhetoric and the reality of people’s behaviour; the love of speed is still in us. I’ll offer just one example.

My 30 years of experience in the high-speed rail sector has proven to me that there is a direct link between speed and frequency of travel. In France, we not only have six high-speed lines in service today, but we have also reduced trip times for hundreds of DA (1) connections. And in every case, the resulting change in traffic volumes was exactly what we expected it to be. There isn’t a single case, of the hundreds of DAs analysed, where travel time didn’t have an impact on traffic volumes.

So you could make an environmental argument against speed. Fundamentally, I believe what’s being asked of transport services is that they become faster, but cause less damage.

(1) From place of Departure, to place of Arrival.

Globalisation is taking place. The only limit appears to be the physical dimension of the Earth, at least until we’ve found a way of travelling to other planets! The climate and energy crisis are very serious. It’s not a question of whether we must do something about it, but of how. To do so, we can imagine two scenarios. In the first, society finds regulatory or fiscal means to limit mobility in an “authoritarian” way. In the second, society finds ways to encourage people to reduce their travel carbon footprint without resorting to authoritarian regulation.

In all probability, mobility will be greater in the second scenario than in the first.

Some will say of the second scenario that “the sky will fall on our heads sooner”, and that ultimately our increased mobility will be reduced in an “authoritarian” way not by society but by nature. But how can you prove that? How can you show that by reducing the amount of contact between people through reduced mobility, that you don’t also end up slowing down technical progress (including the kind of progress that is helping to develop alternative energy sources), which is the only way to reach the famous 4 Factor(1).

The choice largely comes down our faith in scientific progress and citizenship. It’s about not putting the brakes on scientific and technological advance by not restricting mobility too much, but about educating people to reduce needless consumption of fossil-fuel energy.

(1) Reduction of CO2 emissions by a factor of 4 by 2050 from 1990 levels, a feature of the Kyoto treaty.