ABSTRACT
The planning of new infrastructure, including major infrastructure projects over $1 billion in value and many projects of smaller scale, has become critical to the development of many cities internationally, including London. The ambition has become impressive:
Among the programmes and projects… are a new four-runway hub airport to the east of London; delivery of up to 36 trains per hour on certain tube lines; Crossrail 2 by 2030; extending the Bakerloo line; new East-London river crossings; four-tracking the West Anglia lines; a South London Metro; an inner orbital road tunnel; improvements to double the number of passengers on London’s rail network; and 200km of new cycle highways.
(Greater London Authority, 2014a, p.3) Infrastructure planning is positioned as critical in facilitating economic growth – indeed central to globalisation and capitalism itself – premised on the vision of a highly mobile world. Bill Gates’ (1996) notion of ‘frictionless capitalism’ had a central focus on electronic interaction, but associated with this enhanced level of communication is an increase in physical travel as part of a globally interconnected world. The implication for much of London’s planned growth is for the increased mobility of people and goods – aiming for frictionless ease. Infrastructure planning has become synonymous with efforts to promote economic growth across many cities. There are problems, however, with this vision – not least the environmental (e.g. carbon dioxide and local air quality), social (e.g. vehicle-related casualties, severance, poor accessibility for non-car drivers) and associated adverse impacts on the city fabric. The almost universally accepted strategy for sustainable urban mobility is one of high investment in public transport, walking and cycling, alongside compact urban development – yet in many cities this is not being effectively delivered, with too much focus given to highway investment and dispersed development. Infrastructure projects are often developed without sufficient critical assessment. They are marketed as central to sustainable development, yet, in reality, do little more than sustain economic growth, supporting high-income groups in terms of travel and development value uplift.