Search

Municipalities as key players in the transport transition, local authorities are increasingly using consultative public participation in planning. So far, however, it is unclear to what extent they use participatory processes in mobility-related planning and how these are organised. This paper closes this knowledge gap based on an analysis of the consultative, discursive participation processes for mobility-related planning in German cities since 2015. 180 cities and 350 procedures were analysed to determine to what extent an what characteristics in German municipalities use consultative, discursive participation procedures inmobility-related planning and what possible in- fluence of the respective context can be derived from this. The study analyses 'participation-oriented' cities with guidelines for citizen participation, which were compared to a random selection of 'typical' municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Württemberg and Saxony as well as the three German city states. It is clear that discursive consultations are carried out regularly, in particular in municipalities with guidelines and larger cities. Yet in most cities such processes are still the exception. Worth criticizing is that the formats used can usually reach only certain groups of the population and that for a significant proportion of the processes examined no information on the results of participation can be found. As a result, the potential of discursive citizen participation in addressing the municipal transport transition have not yet been sufficiently utilised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Transport policy has regained political relevance in Germany. The successful realization of the Verkehrswende,—the extensive transition toward sustainable transport and mobility—is central to reaching climate neutrality. In 2020, the Federal Government proposed the reform of two key ordinances that have regulated road traffic so far. The amendment was aimed at implementing several provisions at the expense of car drivers and, at the same time, in favor of cyclists and pedestrians. Due to cooperative federalism, the governments of the 16 constituent units (Länder) had to adopt the amendment in the Bundesrat, Germany’s second chamber. In the legislative process, however, the reform ultimately failed in its original scope. Using it as a particularly instructive case study, we show how and why party competition and cooperative federalism hamper comprehensive transport policy reforms in Germany. Results In the German political system, political interests interact within a complex web of cooperative federalism. To understand partisan encroachment on the federal decision-making processes, this paper uses a process-tracing approach. To investigate decision-making in the Bundesrat and its outcomes, the empirical analysis combines qualitative analyses of several publicly available sources. We can empirically demonstrate that political parties influenced legislative procedures. The reform failed in its original scope because the three political parties with veto power in the Bundesrat insisted on their positions and were not willing to agree on a compromise. Conclusions For the implementation of the Verkehrswende, the German federal system proves to be both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, the institutional design of the Bundesrat constrains extreme positions and helps promote decisions most citizens may agree with. The Länder governments and administrations can also contribute their expertise and local experience to federal legislation via the Bundesrat. On the other hand, veto powers are ubiquitous in the German system of cooperative federalism. Therefore, it is prone to blockades. The actions of the political parties in the Bundesrat have hampered the comprehensive reform of road traffic regulations that was originally envisaged. Policymaking took two steps forward toward implementing the Verkehrswende, only to immediately take one step back again.

Mit der am 24. November im Bundesrat gescheiterten Novelle des Straßenverkehrsgesetzes (StVG) und der darauf aufbauenden Straßenverkehrsordnung (StVO) bleibt es beim verkehrsrechtlichen Stillstand. Das Chaos im deutschen Straßenverkehrsrecht hätte die Novelle nicht beseitigt, aber immerhin einen kleinen Reformschritt bedeutet: Sie hätte Kommunen zum Beispiel straßenverkehrsrechtliche Anordnungen aus Gesundheits-, Klima-, Umweltschutz- und städtebaulichen Gründen ermöglicht, ohne sie (jedenfalls theoretisch) weiter an eine Gefahrenlage zu binden (dazu hier). Eine systematische und zukunftsfähige Neuaufstellung des Straßenverkehrsrechts steht aus.

Copyright of Die Unfallchirurgie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Soziologische Revue is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Transport policy has regained political relevance in Germany. The successful realization of the Verkehrswende,—the extensive transition toward sustainable transport and mobility—is central to reaching climate neutrality. In 2020, the Federal Government proposed the reform of two key ordinances that have regulated road traffic so far. The amendment was aimed at implementing several provisions at the expense of car drivers and, at the same time, in favor of cyclists and pedestrians. Due to cooperative federalism, the governments of the 16 constituent units (Länder) had to adopt the amendment in the Bundesrat, Germany's second chamber. In the legislative process, however, the reform ultimately failed in its original scope. Using it as a particularly instructive case study, we show how and why party competition and cooperative federalism hamper comprehensive transport policy reforms in Germany. Results: In the German political system, political interests interact within a complex web of cooperative federalism. To understand partisan encroachment on the federal decision-making processes, this paper uses a process-tracing approach. To investigate decision-making in the Bundesrat and its outcomes, the empirical analysis combines qualitative analyses of several publicly available sources. We can empirically demonstrate that political parties influenced legislative procedures. The reform failed in its original scope because the three political parties with veto power in the Bundesrat insisted on their positions and were not willing to agree on a compromise. Conclusions: For the implementation of the Verkehrswende, the German federal system proves to be both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, the institutional design of the Bundesrat constrains extreme positions and helps promote decisions most citizens may agree with. The Länder governments and administrations can also contribute their expertise and local experience to federal legislation via the Bundesrat. On the other hand, veto powers are ubiquitous in the German system of cooperative federalism. Therefore, it is prone to blockades. The actions of the political parties in the Bundesrat have hampered the comprehensive reform of road traffic regulations that was originally envisaged. Policymaking took two steps forward toward implementing the Verkehrswende, only to immediately take one step back again. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Applying the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) on socio-technical transitions, paired with the interdisciplinary framing approach, this paper investigates how incumbent actors of automobility in Germany framed the issue of a "transition of mobility and transport" ("Verkehrs/Mobilitätswende") in their public communication in 2020. We first identified representatives of industry, science, policy, and media, since the Verkehrs/Mobilitätswende and its implementation measures are contested among these actors. Employing qualitative content analysis, we then screened 325 public documents according to the elements of the framing approach problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation. Results Findings show that most of the actors frame a transformation of transport and mobility as a necessity. Their arguments encompass environmental and climate-related issues as well as infrastructural problems for bikes and public transport caused by the hegemony of automobility. The actors propose a variety of solutions, primarily focusing on technical innovations for cars or on the expansion of different infrastructures to achieve a modal shift towards sustainable mobility. Conclusion This paper demonstrates that there is no common understanding of the problems and solutions to foster a mobility transition, as the diversity of problems and solutions proposed within the frame elements is high and complicates the prevailing implementation gap of the mobility transition. Therefore, MLP should be conceptually and methodologically bridged with the interdisciplinary framing approach, particularly with regard to the transition of mobility and transport.

This contribution investigates the quality of news media coverage on the transition of mobility and transport in Germany as judged by experts in journalism and mobility. Mass media serves a crucial function in reaching an informed political consensus about paths towards sustainable mobility. Political actors, experts, and the general public need to be correctly and comprehensively informed about relevant demands and options for transitioning mobility and transport systems. However, media are often accused of failing to serve their functions in the public interest. Coverage on scientific issues is frequently criticized, e.g., for being incomplete, inaccurate, or skewed negatively or towards elite and standard sources. No research, however, has been undertaken to analyze how well coverage of mobility in transition conforms to professional quality standards. We aim at this research gap using semi-structured interviews with experts in transport/mobility from academia and journalism. Experts' quality expectations are unveiled, and insights are derived on how well mobility journalism meets them. We find that media are accused of several blind spots, seeming to downplay, ignore, or inaccurately report several relevant issues. Findings further show that reporting is slowly shifting from a focus on automobility towards a more diverse presentation of the transport system, while relevance and complexity of the transformation processes are not yet presented sufficiently comprehensibly to a heterogeneous public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Applying the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) on socio-technical transitions, paired with the interdisciplinary framing approach, this paper investigates how incumbent actors of automobility in Germany framed the issue of a "transition of mobility and transport" ("Verkehrs/Mobilitätswende") in their public communication in 2020. We first identified representatives of industry, science, policy, and media, since the Verkehrs/Mobilitätswende and its implementation measures are contested among these actors. Employing qualitative content analysis, we then screened 325 public documents according to the elements of the framing approach problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation. Results: Findings show that most of the actors frame a transformation of transport and mobility as a necessity. Their arguments encompass environmental and climate-related issues as well as infrastructural problems for bikes and public transport caused by the hegemony of automobility. The actors propose a variety of solutions, primarily focusing on technical innovations for cars or on the expansion of different infrastructures to achieve a modal shift towards sustainable mobility. Conclusion: This paper demonstrates that there is no common understanding of the problems and solutions to foster a mobility transition, as the diversity of problems and solutions proposed within the frame elements is high and complicates the prevailing implementation gap of the mobility transition. Therefore, MLP should be conceptually and methodologically bridged with the interdisciplinary framing approach, particularly with regard to the transition of mobility and transport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The transformation of the mobility sector is underway, and technological innovations such as autonomous driving are showing a way to set the future of mobility. In the implementation of new mobility offers, it is essential to consider aspects of acceptability research, as their use may directly depend on acceptability.In this study, determinants of the acceptability of autonomous mobility were investigated using both a comprehensive questionnaire and a virtual reality study. The questionnaire results show that assessments of acceptability of autonomous driving, in general, are lower than the acceptability of specific autonomous vehicles, in this case, autonomous cargo bikes. For both, acceptability increases if (1) the object of acceptability is also expected to be highly beneficial, (2) environmentally friendly values or (3) an intention to use sustainable means of transport exist and (4) discomfort towards innovations such as digitalization is low. Furthermore, the assessment of acceptability varies depending on groups, e.g. between men and women, or between cyclists and car drivers.Our virtual reality study showed that the possibility to experience interaction with autonomous vehicles has a positive effect on their acceptability and related variables.

Copyright of Der Moderne Staat is the property of Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)