Search

This paper explores how three cities (Seattle, Greater Manchester and Stockholm) have approached the governance of smart mobility services in the early stages of their introduction. The research finds that cities have limited steering capacity, and when they do steer services this is done on the assumption that smart mobility will deliver wider social, environmental and economic good. While broad-ranging benefits are yet to materialise to any identifiable degree, the potential for smart mobility to tackle some of the challenges of automobility undoubtedly remains, and the new services are acting to change mobility patterns in cities, at least for some people. We focus on the need to develop clear accountability arrangements between the public and the private sector, which we see as a necessary element of a collaborative governance approach that allows both sides to identify shared goals and maximise their achievement. However, we stress that developing a collaborative approach requires cities to govern with intent, which means that services need to be deployed or permitted with clear objectives and an understanding of their anticipated impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With governments around the world committed to radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and transport-related mobilities making up a significant proportion of current carbon emissions, questions of how to change mobility systems have become a pressing concern. Yet the urgency of this challenge cannot be met with more of the same – particularly in terms of narrow discussions of behaviour change that fail to draw upon the wealth of relevant social scientific research. New methods of collaborating and bringing together communities – whether policymakers, academics, or publics – will also be key. Greg Marsden brings a particularly interesting set of perspectives to the question of what future travel demand might look like, and how we can change practices to get there. While currently a Professor of Transport Governance at Leeds University, Greg has spent significant periods working with policymakers – both within Transport for London and supporting the UK Parliament Transport Select Committee, which scrutinises the UK Department for Transport's (DfT) spending and policies. Our conversation looks at how spaces can be fostered for new ways of thinking, communicating and collaborating to address the challenge of rapidly decarbonising transport systems. Though largely focused upon the UK, the conversation highlights issues related to policy engagement, theory and evidence, and understandings of sharing that will have much wider relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been widespread interest in the potential for the significant behavioural and policy adaptations rendered necessary by Coronavirus to act as a catalyst for radical longer term policy change in transport. However, this body of work to date has been limited in its consideration of how such policy change might be brought about. Translating the lessons from the Coronavirus response to other ongoing strategic challenges such as decarbonisation requires analysis of what the pandemic has revealed about processes of policy formulation and how institutions responsible for policy implementation actually work. This paper explores the extent to which rapid policy change has actually been possible in the transport sector in England and Scotland during the pandemic, and key examples of how such change has been both achieved and blocked. Two rounds of interviews with senior stakeholders from across the transport sector were undertaken in June and November 2020 to inform the analysis. We find that the pandemic has accelerated some policy commitments that were already planned, but at a time of huge stress on the whole of government and its partner delivery organisations, the potential to deliver radical policy adaptation was limited. However, Coronavirus is recognised as being a potentially path-changing disruption to existing trajectories in terms of the adaptations to business practices, industry structures, ways of working and the public finances. Paradoxically, whilst recognising these uncertainties, decision-makers are yet to deviate from pre-pandemic planning assumptions and policy plans and this risks missing the opportunities to steer how those changes unfold. • Addresses research gap in the study of governance responses during disruptions. • Identifies transport as a distant policy sub-sector in a crisis that affected all parts of government. • Finds that the response to the pandemic has accelerated already planned policies but generated few new policies. • Long-term impacts on the future structure of cities, use of public transport and uptake of active travel could still emerge. • The leading strategic thinkers on transport policy are still unsure what kinds of future demand to plan for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an active contemporary debate about how emerging technologies such as automated vehicles, peer-to-peer sharing applications and the ‘internet of things’ will revolutionise individual and collective mobility. Indeed, it is argued that the so-called ‘Smart Mobility’ transition, in which these technologies combine to transform how the mobility system is organised and operates, has already begun. As with any socio-technical transition there are critical questions to be posed in terms of how the transition is managed, and how both the benefits and any negative externalities of change will be governed. This paper deploys the notion of ensuring and enhancing public value as a key governance aim for the transition. It sets out modes and methods of governance that could be deployed to steer the transition and, through four thematic cases explores how current mobility governance challenges will change. In particular, changing networks of actors, resources and power, new logics of consumption, and shifts in how mobility is regulated, priced and taxed – will require to be successfully negotiated if public value is to be captured from the transition. This is a critical time for such questions to be raised because technological change is clearly outpacing the capacity of systems and structures of governance to respond to the challenges already apparent. A failure to address both the short and longer-term governance issues risks locking the mobility system into transition paths which exacerbate rather than ameliorate the wider social and environmental problems that have challenged planners throughout the automobility transition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bus Rapid Transit systems exist in over 206 cities and 45 countries around the world. They are seen to provide a much lower cost option of mass mobility than fixed rail or underground systems which developing countries struggle to afford. Whilst BRT systems have undoubtedly been seen to be successful from a transport system perspective, they are more than a transport system innovation. They are often introduced to replace what is seen to be a failing, unsafe and poorly regulated informal transit system. This paper therefore focuses on the process of BRT introduction as a governance reform. The paper draws on African experience where adoption of BRT has been slow relative to South America and South East Asia. Using an in-depth analysis of the introduction of a new system in Ghana and data on levels of governance maturity across the African sub-continent, the paper finds that to understand BRT implementation requires an understanding of how the incumbent transport regime could and will be able to be reorganized. The success of BRT systems that result will depend at least as much on how the reforms are achieved as it will on the usual design concerns which typically occupy transport planners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critiques the state of the art approaches to studying transportation policy. It does so through analysing 100 papers sampled from the two leading policy journals in the transportation literature. On applying two different frameworks for understanding policy, the review finds that only 13% of papers consider specific aspects of the policy cycle, that 60% focus on ‘tools’ for policy, and that two-thirds of papers did not engage with real-world policy examples or policy makers and focussed on quantitative analysis alone. We argue that these findings highlight the persistence of the technical-rational model within the transportation literature. This model, and the numerous traditions and disciplines that have fed into it have an important role to play in developing the transportation evidence base. However, we argue there are important questions of governance; such as context, power, resources and legitimacy, that are largely being ignored in the literature as it stands. The substantial lack of engagement with governance issues and debates means that as a field we are artificially, but more importantly, disproportionately generating a science of applied policy making which is unlikely to be utilised because of the distance between it and the realities on the ground. The paper identifies analytical approaches deployed readily in other fields that could be used to address some of the key deficiencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper addresses the important question of how institutional structures matter to the delivery of climate change policy for urban transport. It examines the strategic goals, policy tools in operation and initial progress towards carbon emission reduction in seven cities across the UK and Germany where different institutional structures exist. The UK has the presence of a strong national carbon target and strong hierarchical national–local government relationships whilst Germany has a more integrated system of local transport provision in a context where local and regional government is stronger. Our findings show that the carbon agenda has made very little difference to what is happening on the ground in the cities. Across all sites, progress is being made but largely through technological improvements which are being almost completely offset by population growth. Even in the more integrated city environments there has not be an additional stimulus to manage the demand for travel. Contrary to previous research therefore, we cannot conclude that institutional structures are paramount in delivering effective carbon reduction policies. The institutional structures in the UK and in Germany are not perfectly aligned to carbon management but, given the cross policy impacts of most transport interventions, this is perhaps inevitable. We can clearly conclude however that “better” structures are not sufficient to achieve the implementation of more effective carbon policies. Whilst institutional structures must matter, it is the broader governance environment and the resources and politics involved in transport policy that currently seem to dominate the importance of the carbon agenda and implementation paths that emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Highlights and Abstract This article provides the first detailed and evidence-based account of the coalition government's approach to transport-related carbon management., It exposes the existence of a 'governance vacuum' between the statutory target and a very weak devolved implementation system (i.e. 'fuzzy governance' and 'fuzzy accountability')., Research in four major city regions reveals a systemic switch from an emphasis on carbon management and reduction towards economic growth and job creation., Officials within the policy design and delivery chain emphasise the manner in which the demands of democratic politics tend to frustrate meaningful policy change., A general demand by actors at the local level not for the discretions delivered by localism but for a more robust and centrally managed-even statutory-governance framework., The Climate Change Act 2008 received global acclaim for embedding an ambitious set of targets for the reduction of carbon emissions in legislation. This article explores the policies and institutional frameworks in place to deliver transport-related carbon reductions as part of the subsequent Carbon Plan. A detailed methodology involving institutional mapping, interviews and focus groups combined with a theoretical approach that combines the theory of multi-level governance with the literature on 'blame avoidance' serves to reveal a complex system of 'fuzzy governance' and 'fuzzy accountability'. Put simply, it reveals there are no practical sub-national implementation levers for achieving the statutory targets. Apart from symbolic or rhetorical commitments, the emphasis of policy-makers at all levels in the delivery chain has switched from carbon management and reduction to economic growth and job creation. This raises fresh research questions about the pathologies of democratic competition and future responses to the climate change challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Climate change is one of the key global policy issues of our time. Transport is the sector from which it has been hardest to cut emissions and, to make substantial progress in the future, action will be required at all levels of government from international to local. The governance of transport within this already challenging arena is further complicated by the existence of different structures for the management of transport modes and variations in formal governance structures across countries and regions. This paper examines the prospect for deep cuts in CO2 emissions from transport through an examination of the key policy levers for change and considering the governance issues that surround them. The focus of the paper is the United Kingdom, and in particular England and Scotland. The UK is the first country to have a legally binding internal obligation to meet carbon dioxide reduction targets and this has prompted significant activity in both governance institutions and delivery. The research uses a multi-level governance framework to understand the policy environment in England and Scotland, capturing both the range of spatial actors and the influence of sectoral actors in what is a complex polity. It is concluded that the policy approach currently appears constrained by a desire to divide accountability by formal institutional structures, thus failing to tackle the dispersed nature of travel and the national and international nature of businesses. There is currently a lack of clarity about the tiering of responsibilities between spatial levels and there is therefore a comparative lack of commitment to the potential for demand management and travel reduction strategies to contribute to carbon reduction. Carbon reduction policies are also influenced by strong industry lobbies whose goals may not be fully aligned with carbon reduction strategies. The profusion of actors engaged in climate change policy seems to dilute rather than promote effective policy making. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The Paris Agreement requires radical action across all policy sectors and at all scales of government. This paper argues that without a clear framework for sectoral budget setting which takes account of interactions across spatial scales, incoherent and inadequate policy responses will result. Using a case study of the transport sector within the UK, which has committed to a zero carbon pathway in law, we look at three key elements which have to be considered in setting out a new framework: budget coherence, accounting coherence and policy coherence. Using top-down and bottom-up examples emerging from practices today in the UK, we demonstrate that there are no 'optimal' solutions but a set of choices, all of which appear to be better than the patchwork of approaches emerging in the absence of a framework. A multi-scalar approach is essential as transport crosses spatial boundaries and the policy system places different levers at different scales. Transparency will be beneficial for honesty with the public and the difficult politics this rapid transition necessitates. It will also mitigate against blame shifting across governments between and within scales and the resultant inaction which characterized the previous decade of supposed 'climate action'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper highlights the extent to which a future mobility system dominated by Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) poses profound challenges to the 'publicness' of the transport and mobility systems of many cities. This is evident at different policy levels: the regulatory posture of governments, changing notions of the contributions of mobility to wider 'public value', and the underpinning shared experiences of urban life and citizenship or civitas. There is relatively little discussion of how widespread automation might reduce the 'publicness' of transport systems in terms of the range of mobility opportunities they offer, how changing patterns of mobility across neighbourhoods and social groups will contribute to urban restructuring, and the implications of this for public value and the character or civitas of cities. In particular, we note how the huge expansion in mobility choices made possible by CAVs might lead to circumstances in which the outcome of individuals exercising that choice is to change the nature of urban mobility profoundly. We identify a number of key challenges that policy makers will need to address in managing the introduction of CAVs in their cities, and how using the lens of 'publicness' might help them do so. • We explore how the notion of 'publicness' can contribute to debates on how best to manage and govern the impacts of autonomous mobility • Shared and automated mobility could extend or diminish opportunities for citizens, with multiple ramifications for public interests • Policy makers are under intense pressure from varied interests over how best to regulate and govern automated mobility • We conceptualise publicness as existing at three levels of debate: ownership and regulation, public value, and civitas • Effective policy interventions will be required to achieve 'public' goals at each of these levels [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]