London scoping - ukcip

Final Report
163
underground and trains might well be greater use of private cars, increasing congestion on the
roads and, presumably, encouraging more private-sector investment in public transport, so
acting as a negative feedback (i.e. improving public transport). Under RS, the response might
be greater use of walking and cycling. In an RS world, people might live nearer to where they
worked so facilitating such solutions. At the same time, under RS, many people might not be
able to afford to commute long distances due to general reduction in wealth. Any impacts upon
aviation would be more keenly felt under GM than RS, because of the greater international
mobility experienced in GM.
It is also difficult to distinguish between GM and RS with respect to the pressure on the
transport system heading out of the capital. It would be greater under GM due to more affluent
and mobile inhabitants wishing to go on more day-trips or short-breaks around the UK and
beyond. On the other hand, under RS there would be more use of local places for holidays,
reducing pressure upon airports but potentially increasing demand for travel to traditional
holiday destinations around the UK. Under GM, however, we would envisage more car-based
pressure, and under RS, more public transport-based pressures. Under GM, air conditioning in
cars would be standard, whereas under RS it would be discouraged by government because of
the energy penalty. Also, the higher price of fuel under RS would act as a deterrent to
automatically include AC in a car purchase. This might mean that car drivers under RS are
more irritable because of hot weather than car drivers in GM, exacerbated as they are under RS
by the poor state of the roads due to lack of investment. On the other hand, under GM there
would be more cars and lorries to start with, so that the aggravation of higher congestion levels
would be greater than under RS.
7.3.10 Comparison with Other Cities
As noted above, cities with more recently constructed underground systems (Singapore, Hong
Kong) have the benefit of being able to include air conditioning, though not without problems.
Congestion from cars is a common problem in cities in the industrialised world, though some
have tackled it more aggressively through restricting entrance and high zonal charging (e.g.
Singapore & Hong Kong). Cities which can use waterways as main transport routes have a
slight advantage in that the travel conditions would be more attractive. London might even have
a slight edge here over other cities such as New York and Tokyo which, whilst located on the
coast, do not have the same accessibility to the inner city areas from rivers running through the
urban mass. By contrast, many commercial, cultural, retail and tourist destinations are quite
accessible from the River Thames. The transport infrastructure in New York (with its large
bridges, docks, harbours, etc.) also seems to be at a greater threat from sea-level rise and
extreme events than in London. The large number of tunnels and railway lines located on lowlying
coastal strips makes NYC’s transport infrastructure very vulnerable to sea-level rise and
coastal inundation (Rosenzweig & Solecki 2001). Indeed, one of the structures of a new tunnel
bringing water to the New York City (Third Water Tunnel) was raised in response to climate
change.