Environmentalist George Monbiot writes in the Guardian that plans to develop a high-speed railway network linking London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds should be re-examined. He argues that 92 per cent of its customers are expected to switch to high-speed rail from what he claims are less polluting alternatives and questions the unchallenged assumptions made by successive governments encouraging people to travel more.

Citing Department for Transport figures that expect flying to increase by 178 per cent between 2008 and 2033, driving by 43 per cent and train journeys by 150 per cent, Monbiot complains that the department does not seek to cut this demand, only to accommodate it. Sceptical of government estimates that business customers will save £17.6bn by reaching their destinations faster and leisure customers £11.1bn, he asks, 'Are we to assume that an extra 20 minutes spent watching the telly when you get to your hotel is a benefit to which a price can be attached? How much is an hour with your granny worth?'

In Christianity, Climate Change, and Sustainable Living, we noted 'People in the UK today travel further to school, work, shop and for leisure than ever before. The average commute is over 8 miles (it used to be just over 5 miles 30 years ago), the average business trip is 19 miles (compared to 14), the average school run is 3 miles (compared to 2), the average shopping trip 4 miles (compared to 2.6), and the average leisure trip 8.5 miles (compared to just over 7).' Despite this increase in distance travelled, 'the overall time we spend travelling has remained relatively constant at around 360 hours per person per year.'

So, is Monbiot right to complain about the trend towards ever increasing travel, if that travel does not place any greater demand on our use of time? Old Testament Law aimed to encourage family members to help each other and avoid where possible any family member needing to move away; as we observe in Free to Live, it gave each family a strong, shared geographical and religious identity which involved far more than purely financial considerations. However, modern life is very different:

'University leavers rarely settle in their home areas, and people frequently move around for work ... Mobility is seen as the price of success – sometimes it’s even the reward. But the process of leaving behind a community and established relationships is stressful. New relationships may not have time to flourish, and people are less willing to invest time to make new friends if they know they will be moving again soon. If one partner works in another town, leading to a long daily or even weekly commute, this can lead to stretched, fragmented and shallow relationships. The relational breakdown that often results can drive further mobility and an increasingly individualistic outlook, which leads in turn to even greater breakdown.'

The study guide accompanying the first edition of Votewise concluded its section on transport and mobility with the following question: 'Is there any way in which we might shape our social policy – for house-building, the housing market, road-building, property ownership, work relocation, etc. – that could encourage a sense of rootedness and universal participation in the community?' However, we need to move beyond simply looking to the government for all the answers. Where we choose to live and send our children to school, which job we choose to take, and where we choose to do our shopping are just as important factors. To reframe Monbiot's question, to what extent are we prepared to change our lifestyles to enable our children to enjoy an extra hour with their grandparents?

• 
• Share