Abstract

International audience; Since the 1990s, the city of Paris and Île-de-France region (ie Paris urban region and regional government) have experienced massive and profound changes in transportation policy. Officials in Paris City council, region Ile de France and other local authorities have combined initiatives and programs to expand public transport infrastructure and modify use of street space, promoting strong alternatives to private vehicle use and auto-centric urban design, and increasing accessibility to major economic and financial centers. How did Paris achieve these successes in transport policymaking? How did the city and region establish a new mobility paradigm? We argue that the political objectives, policy innovations, and institutionalized governance changes that connected city and regional actors together behind a more integrated transport system, highlighting the key role that conflict and cooperation among political authorities and parties at various scales played in achieving these transformative transportation outcomes.

Abstract

This document, D4.2 Paris Île-de-France region report, is part of the second series of technical reports produced as part of WP4 during Task 3, “Qualitative analysis of transport policy development cycle processes in the five Stage 3 cities during the Shift from Stage 1 to Stage 3”. It seeks to develop a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the historical development of policies relating to traffic congestion and car use over the past four decades. It investigates the ways in which transport policies are designed and implemented in the five Stage 3 cities, how they have evolved over time, which policy mix has been favoured at different times, their intended/unexpected effects, and how coordination has been ensured. Published as part of D4.2 report "halshs-02382094"; The analysis done in CREATE highlights the critical role played by political and institutional conflicts in acontext of exacerbated fragmentation and the extent to which a large variety of actors, namely different levels ofgovernment, technical agencies, political parties, elite groups and professional networks, compete in order toshape transport governance and the distribution of transport policy resources. This was achieved throughcontinuous institutional reforms, major conflicts and competition strategies, and the development of highly visiblepolicy initiatives and projects.By contrast to other cities under study in WP4, where consensus-seeking strategies account for policychange over time, competition emerges as the main driver for change in the case of the Paris and Ile-de-Franceregion: competition between levels of government, between political parties, between transport companies andbetween social and economic groups. Together, this accounts for the coexistence over a long period of time oftwo highly differentiated models of urban and spatial planning in the capital-city region: on the one hand aliveable, sustainable and compact model in which the automobile is integrated in a larger regional sustainabletransport system, and on the other hand, a regional growth model which primarily relies on the automobile inorder to ensure daily accessibility for commuters to the core metropolitan area.Interestingly, such levels of competition have not led to inertia and the report documents the ways inwhich demographics and urbanization dynamics were instrumental in triggering various forms of collective actionacross the region. In terms of transport policy developments and transport behaviours, the evolution of transportpolicy objectives, resources and tools sheds light on both the “What’s” (substance) and the “How’s” (governance)of transport policy change. On the one hand, it shows how a sustainable approach to transport planning andpolicy-making progressively emerged at the margins of the transport policy sector, through the diffusion ofalternative representations and policy solutions, and by drawing on small-scale innovations. But on the otherhand, the evolution of transport policy objectives, resource and tools also highlight how state elites and networksare able to successfully resist bottom-up pressures and maintain, in a number of cases, a state-led approach totransport planning in the capital-city region that prioritizes its role as the national powerhouse.Acknowledging the continued coexistence of both dynamics as well as their interplay over timecontributes to better understanding remaining spatial disparities in terms of transport policy developments - aresult that echoes the analysis done in WP3 regarding individual/collective choices pertaining to transportation inParis and the Ile-de-France region. A shift away from the automotive city undoubtedly took place in the Paris Ilede-France region, and the development of stage 3 policies is precisely documented. Yet this result remainsambiguous: this evolution is unevenly spread – both socially and spatially, recent conflicts over specific transportpolicy initiatives confirmed the permanence of high resistance capacities and the ability of a number of newentrants and old players to draw on new technologies in order to promote car-based forms of mobility.

Abstract

International audience; Marketing decisions and strategic planning of tourism provisions require knowledge of factors affecting this choice and type of trips and forecast of tourism flows in the short and long term. It is interesting to know how holidaymakers select their holiday destinations and investigate which factors are determining their choices. Indeed the objective of this paper is to analyze the role of High Speed Rail systems in this choice. A survey was carried out in Paris in October 2012, tourists were interviewed close to the Eiffel Tower, Paris Lyon Central Train Station and Notre-Dame Cathedral. The results will be compared with a previous survey employed in Rome in April 2012. The scope here is providing an answer to the questions: are tourists influenced by the presence of High Speed Rail in choosing Paris or Rome for their holidays? Does High Speed Rail influence the probability of visiting other served cities and returning to Paris or to Rome? The research suggests that several factors (the presence of architectural sites, the quality of promotion of the destination itself, the presence of events) influence the choice of a tourist. It also shows that the HSR system has affected the choice of Paris and Rome differently.

Abstract

This book is one of the outcomes of the DIVERCITIES project. It focuses on the question of how to create social cohesion, social mobility and economic performance in today’s hyper-diversified cities. The project’s central hypothesis is that urban diversity is an asset; it can inspire creativity, innovation and make cities more liveable and harmonious. To ensure a more intelligent use of diversity’s potential, a re-thinking of public policies and governance models is needed.