Government Inquiry's View on Future of Transport in tUK

[Zod]

You will love this:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/744c2bde-8ed9-11da-b752-000

FT said:

Startlingly different visions of how the UK might look in 50 years, ranging from a green utopia of bicycling commuters to a conflict-strewn land of tribes in mud huts, have been unveiled by a government inquiry into the future of transport.

FT said:

Stephen Ladyman, the minister for transport, was at pains to point out the four scenarios for 2055 set out in the report were "not government targets and achieving them is not government policy". Such caution may be understandable, given that the possible events during the next five decades forecast by the research include a "huge" global energy crisis, frequent floods rendering some parts of Britain almost uninhabitable, the evacuation of Beijing after dust storms and the cessation of all commercial flights.

In the usual way, a potentially useful study that could have looked into improving the road network and traffic flow and getting public trasnport working properly, instead turned into a self-indulgent litany of the fantasies of the green and left-wing lobby groups

[Jaglover]

Zod said:

In the usual way, a potentially useful study that could have looked into improving the road network and traffic flow and getting public trasnport working properly, instead turned into a self-indulgent litany of the fantasies of the green and left-wing lobby groups

Did you expect any different?

[TheLemming]

In other news, it transpires that large sections of the "report" were apparently excerpts from new books by William Gibson, Peter F Hamilton and other science fiction authors.

Seriously though, what utter utter fantasist idiocy are we spending public money on next?

(on the other hand subsidising Peter F Hamilton would eb a great idea, we'd get more books out of him! )

[lunarscope]

TheLemming said:

In other news, it transpires that large sections of the "report" were apparently excerpts from new books by William Gibson, Peter F Hamilton and other science fiction authors. Seriously though, what utter utter fantasist idiocy are we spending public money on next? (on the other hand subsidising Peter F Hamilton would eb a great idea, we'd get more books out of him! )

Oh yes.

[cazzer]

And correct me if I'm wrong but these kind of government transport thinktanks had me flying to work in hovercars wearing shiny aluminium suits in the year 2000.
Well thats what they were predicting in 1950 anyway.

[Parrot of Doom]

Hamilton is bloody great, I'd happily read more of his books. That last Sci-fi trilogy was excellent.

[Twincam16]

cazzer said:

And correct me if I'm wrong but these kind of government transport thinktanks had me flying to work in hovercars wearing shiny aluminium suits in the year 2000. Well thats what they were predicting in 1950 anyway.

This just highlights the curse of postmodernism. Back in the '50s, we were all optimistic and anything that suggested a better future was given credence. Hence, in fact, Christopher Cockerell's hovercraft.

Nowadays we seem to have given up completely. We're so scared to try something new in case it doesn't work out that we just wander around wringing our hands going 'we're doomed' instead.

In the '50s, if someone thought our planet was going to become uninhabitable, someone would respond by designing Moonbase Alpha or some hi-tech floating water-city complete with Ferrari boats. Nowadays the solution seems to be 'go back to being cavemen'

[mr_tony]

This is a standard excercise called strategic planning. It's a well known business tool and is carried out (rather more expertly I'd suggest) by most large corporations. The initiatiors of the trend were Shell in the 70's. Shell did very well out of the Oil crisis, as through it's use fo strategic planning the board had already confronted the possible scenario years before - as such they were better prepared to cope.

Theres a fundamental difference between conducting a strategic planning exercise where you create 'str3w man' scenarios and look at how current policy would cope with those scenarios, and planning for the future. Strategic planning is a technique you use to analyse how you might cope in the future if certain types of challenge would present themselves. It isn't a dress rehersal!!!

So - it's a complete non-story IMHO...

[PhillT]

I was at the press briefing for this yesterday.
Most of the press seems to have run on one particular angle. Of the ones I've seen, perculiarly only the Guardian seems to have done it fairly straight, at least for the first half of its write-up.
It was actually rather interesting, and only intended to have a stab at what MIGHT happen, so that a debate could be started on where the public want to go.
The full report is, I believe, available at www.foresight.gov.uk. But be warned, it's huge.

[bga]

mr_tony said:

This is a standard excercise called strategic planning. It's a well known business tool and is carried out (rather more expertly I'd suggest) by most large corporations. The initiatiors of the trend were Shell in the 70's. Shell did very well out of the Oil crisis, as through it's use fo strategic planning the board had already confronted the possible scenario years before - as such they were better prepared to cope. Theres a fundamental difference between conducting a strategic planning exercise where you create 'str3w man' scenarios and look at how current policy would cope with those scenarios, and planning for the future. Strategic planning is a technique you use to analyse how you might cope in the future if certain types of challenge would present themselves. It isn't a dress rehersal!!! So - it's a complete non-story IMHO...

I thought the same when I read it.

I would be more worried if they weren't doing this sort of thing.