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

This document, D4.2 Copenhagen 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"; When, why and how was Copenhagen able to (re-)invent itself successfully into “the bicycle city”? To whatextent are these developments replicable in other cities in CREATE and beyond? This report both highlights andaccounts for the process of gradual yet transformative change, which has characterized transport policy developments inCopenhagen and its metropolitan area over the past four decades. It provides some explanation as to why and how asustainable urban transport agenda emerged as a major political priority and flagship initiative. It also suggests that thesituation is not as clear-cut as suggested by political discourses: pro-car policies and car use have not been completelyabandoned in Copenhagen, and similarly, sustainable mobility policies are being strengthened beyond the city’s limits.In this perspective, the analytical framework developed as part of WP4, which combines the public policyapproach with the urban governance approach (see WP4 D4.1 report), proved particularly useful in order to examine theambiguous relationship between policy discourses on the one hand, and policy outcomes on the other hand. More thanin any other cases studied in WP4, the Copenhagen case confirms the need to examine policy implementation dynamicsin order to make sense of the choice and selection of policy instruments, including the role attributed from an early stageon to communication-based policy tools.

Abstract

The findings reported in this deliverable reflect the state of knowledge up to their first submission date. A revised version will be submitted in August 2021 that will include more recent material. https://www.roadspace.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MORE-D2.3_WITHOUT-CONFIDENTIAL-ANNEXE.pdf; The development of new, alternative, diverse road uses challenges existing forms of allocating space on urban road networks. Different actors and stakeholders hold differing views on how space should be allocated across different transport modes and non-transport activities. These differing views are made material through the claims that are made by a wide range of stakeholders about the allocation and use of road space. What are these claims about? How are they mobilized? To what extent are these claims channelled by formal consultation processes? What similarities can be found across cities? How are these views represented at EU level? While some actors may promote the shift from roads as traffic-enabling infrastructure to a multifunctional urban asset, others resist this transformation. By purposefully using the notion of contestation, this report assumes that claims about the future of roads’ functions and uses contribute to reshaping the politics of space allocation as well as the ability of existing institutional arrangements and policy processes to accommodate such claims. It contributes to the work done in the MORE project by providing an analysis of the politics of road space allocation.

Abstract

This document, D4.2 Berlin 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 D4.2 Berlin report examines the evolution of Berlin’s transport policy in order to understand the shiftaway from car-oriented policies towards alternative transport policies. The main objective of the case study reportis to identify those factors – or combinations of factors – that explain transport policy change over time. Whichpolicy objectives, instruments and measures were introduced? How were they elaborated? By whom? Were theysuccessfully implemented?It shows that despite major dramatic political changes, there is a certain level of continuity in Berlin’stransport policy development. The pivotal role of public transport and more specifically, of rail-based networks, isensured through long term and robust forms of governance combined with within-policy dynamics in the transportsector. The integrated approach to transport, that emerged in West-Berlin in the late 1980s and which hasbecome the core of the city’s policy since the early 2000s, accounts for such continuity insofar as itseeks to make public transport as attractive as possible in order to provide a strong alternative to car use, while atthe same time favouring incentives rather than constraining approaches to car use. In addition, the status of othermodes of transport remained ambiguous until the recent period, thus leading to recent controversies. Theseresults confirm the originality of the analysis carried out in WP4 for the understanding of transport policydevelopments in Berlin.

Abstract

The findings reported in this deliverable reflect the state of knowledge up to their first submission date. A revised version will be submitted in August 2021 that will include more recent material.; This report is the third WP2 deliverable. Drawing on the work done on the organizational, institutional, regulatory and political dimensions of road space allocation, it focuses on the contestation of street space. By purposefully using the notion of contestation, it sets out to identify various views on how space should be allocated across different transport modes and non-transport activities, as well as the various ways through which they are made material. Who has an interest in contesting road space arrangements or proposed changes? What are these claims about? How are they mobilized? To what extent are these claims channelled by formal consultation and decision-making processes? What similarities can be found across cities? How are these views represented at EU level? Drawing on an original qualitative dataset, the report includes an up-to-date analysis of how the contestation of street space enfolds across five cities - London, Constanta, Malmö, Lisbon and Budapest - and at EU level. Content: An up-to-date analysis of how the contestation of street space enfolds across five cities - London, Constanta, Malmö, Lisbon and Budapest - and at EU level ; Appendices : the detailed, supporting analysis for each of the five cases (“city portraits”), two sets of recommendations produced by ECF (European Cyclists Foundation) of how existing EU and Member states legislation should be revised in order to accommodate cycling.

Abstract

part of the CREATE project, the primary goal of WP4 is to analyse the historical ‘Transport Policy Evolution Cycle’ processes in Stage 3 cities, by identifying the qualitative factors that have enabled – or hindered – a shift from Stage 1 “urban congestion growth” to Stage 3“encouraging sustainable mobility and liveable cities” policies, and highlighting lessons to be learnt in order to speedup these processes in Stage 1 cities. This is the first WP4 technical report. It introduces the common analytic framework, methodology and data collection strategy that is applied in WP4. It also provides a first assessment of the spatial and chronological perimeter it targets, a brief mapping out of multi-level institutional and transport governance settings in the five Stage 3 cities, including a chronology of the shift from Stage 1 to Stage 3 and. Most of the work introduced in this report was done in close cooperation with partners across the five cities and with other WPs in the CREATE project. This first internal report is organized in five sections. First it discusses the relevance of the “Transport Policy Evolution Cycle” approach for understanding the long-term evolution of transport policy developments in European capital-cities. Second, drawing on the policy studies and urban governance literatures, it it introduces the common analytic framework for the work done as part of WP4. Third, it introduces the research design, methodology and data collection strategy applied in WP4. Fourth, it develops a short case-by-case analysis of the current state of urban sustainable mobility policies and governance across the five cases under scrutiny. Based on this first case-by case assessment of data availability in all five cities, it discusses next steps.