Soft Measures –
Or
Seducing Europe’s Transport Users
Joerg Beckmann, European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E)
Introduction
This paper is a response
by the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) to the draft
OECD report on “Policy Instruments For Achieving Environmentally Sustainable
Transport (EST)”, and in particular to chapters 4 and 5 of this document.
T&E welcomes, and has done so on different other occasions, both the EST
process and its highly valuable outcome. This latest report on policy
instruments supports many of T&E’s own positions and arguments and
represents an excellent scientific reference for environmental NGOs working on
sustainable transport.
T&E welcomes the
emphasis the report places on the social, cultural and political dimensions of
transport, while still addressing transport economics and transport technology
(from a social, cultural and political angle). This approach well illustrates
the cultural role of mobility and the meaning that transport has in society.
The report also reveals
that any partial (technical or fiscal) solution to contemporary transport
problems will not reform the transport sector as a whole. Therefore, what the
document implicitly asks for is a “Mobility Reform”, that is to say a
transformation of the way people travel. This reform can only come about if
OECD countries are able to agree upon changing the way in which they plan for,
and govern, the everyday transport of goods and passengers.
By defining EST,
addressing its barriers, and suggesting measures to overcome them, the report
outlines the essential features of a different transport system, of another
mobility regime. The kind of “New Mobility” that the document is proposing
turns away from “automobility” as the dominant kind of modern mobility, i.e.
the kind of individual transport that solely rests on the private car, and
instead promotes a variety of other more sustainable and integrated ways of
travelling. Because of both its visionary dimension and concrete suggestions,
T&E welcomes this report as a cornerstone in achieving a global sustainable
transport system.
Apart from comprising a
comprehensive catalogue of measures to implement environmentally sustainable
transport systems in OECD countries, the report also contains a crucial chapter
on possible barriers to attain EST (chapter 4). This chapter is important
because it points at some problems that are often overlooked by transport
planners and engineers – i.e. the rational and especially the irrational responses
with which different communities react to changing their mobility patterns.
This and the subsequent
chapter on how EST concepts and strategies can be translated into action, are a
substantial contribution to making sustainable transport a reality. However,
T&E feels that there are a number of issues in these chapters, which
deserve a closer, and maybe even different look, than the one offered by the
contributing experts. Hence, the purpose of this statement by T&E is not to
question any of the suggestions made in the report, but to further stimulate
the discussion on how to achieve EST in the OECD countries. Below, we turn to
the three key terms of chapter 4 – the individual, the society and the
technology – and address a few points, which, according to our view, deserve
more scrutiny.
The individual – from advising transport
users to seducing them
The report communicates a
clear message by addressing the lack of awareness, concern, information,
adequate professional advice, and rational behaviour within the transport
sector. It points at the need to stimulate cognitive-rational responses of
individual transport users to the environmental problems of motorised
transport. The focus is on “explaining” why there is a need to change transport
patterns, and that doing so is of benefit to the environment as well as future
generations. Undoubtedly, this approach is an important step to achieve EST.
However, it should be
emphasised that, because much of what underpins contemporary modal choice is
simply based on habits, affection and emotion, providing information and hoping
for so-called rational behaviour has its limits. Hence, instead of providing
more “professional advice and public education”, as the report argues, we would
also suggest offering more “professional co-operation and public seduction”.
What does that mean?
Firstly, rather than
trying to generate new (and thereby often merely reproducing old)
professional/expert knowledge, it is necessary to facilitate co-operation
between transport experts from different disciplines. Nowadays, each discipline
has a number of experts dedicated to transport matters. It is no longer the
case that transport is only an issue for economists, planners and engineers.
Art historians are employed by car manufacturers, transport sociologists work
for environmental NGOs, and behavioural scientists conduct questionnaires for
public transport companies. It is vital to bring these professionals together
and allow for exchange and co-operation between the different knowledge
cultures.
Secondly, helping the
citizen to understand the environmental problems of unsustainable transport
behaviour is the precondition of changing it – but seducing the car driver
to use a bike or take the train is the key to inducing change. Rather than
changing the transport attitude of citizens, their actual transport
behaviour ought to be addressed directly – since a specific attitude does
not necessarily determine a specific behaviour.
One way to bring about
this behavioural change is, for instance, to seduce car drivers into walking,
biking or using public transport. Once the virtues of “not having to drive or
park a car” are experienced first hand, a change of attitude will follow more
or less automatically. Helping the citizen to “feel” and not just “understand”
the advantages of leading a car-free life, will as well have repercussions on
individual attitudes towards and cultural myths about motorised transport.
Positive examples and best practices that support this approach are provided by
research on the changing behaviour of transport users who “converted“ from
owning a private car to sharing a public car. More support can be found in
research on the experienced gains in quality of life amongst the members of
car-free households. Most important, though, are the insights into the
aesthetic, emotional and non-rational dimensions of transport that are offered
by the car industry itself. It could very well be argued that the ongoing
success of the car is a result of an “awareness campaign” that seduces rather
than informs and that appeals to an instinct rather than to an enlightened
concern for health and the environment.
The success of such a
campaign is illustrated by the continuous reproduction of “car-myths[1]”
like the one that a “car-based life can be extraordinarily rewarding. Those who
live it travel with comfort, convenience, and privacy unknown in times past
even to royalty” – a quote that could be part of a contemporary car-ad, but is
unfortunately found in the draft version of the OECD report. It is equally
important for any attempt to overcome individual barriers and attain EST, to
emphasise the inconveniences that come along with car-ownership and point at
the personal benefits derived from walking and biking.
The society – breaking the link between
modernisation and mobilisation
According to the report,
the second major barrier to attaining EST is society itself. Modern societies
have given rise to solid political, economic and cultural institutions that
frame and govern the current transport system. Examples are the structure of
current administrative systems, the world-view of political decision-makers,
the urban form and fabric, or a value system that equates more mobility with
more freedom. These institutions are not easily subject to change – so states
the report.
From a social-scientific
perspective, the common feature of most modern institutions is that they are
self-referential, that is to say they are able to constantly reproduce
themselves. The best example is given by the automobile and the spatial
formations it has given birth to: by reinforcing urban sprawl, the car has
created the preconditions for its own reproduction – it creates its own demand
by transforming space into “auto-space”, i.e. spatial formations that make it
difficult to travel without a car. Similar mechanisms are in place when we
look, for instance, at aviation and tourism. Here as well a certain form of
transport is constantly fuelling its demand by providing mass-access to
ever-more distant and exotic areas.
This self-sustaining
process is indeed difficult to interrupt. Nevertheless, it is possible – as,
for example the “blip” in air-traffic growth in the aftermath of WTC-Attacks
has illustrated. Disregarding, for a moment, the tragic causes that led to a
preliminary decline in air-travel demand, the incident has shown that economies
do continue to exist – even with less physical travel. Obviously, in certain
cases and under certain conditions, change is possible.
In order to bring about a
change in the way modern societies organise their mobility, the “mobility view”
of decision-makers – or their world-outlook on transport, as the report says
–has to change. What this essentially means is that we need a new social
contract on mobility – a contract questioning the general belief that modernisation
means mobilisation. Modernising the way we travel cannot automatically be
tantamount with “speeding-up” and “moving more”. Especially not when personal
time-gains as a result of faster means of transportation are continuously
reinvested into ever-more travel, movement and mobility. If modernising
individual transport means travelling more in less time – then social
development enters a vicious circle that will eventually prove of no benefit to
anyone.
A mobility view that
seeks to break the current link between modernisation and mobilisation has
already been translated into transport economics by emphasising the need to
decouple transport from economic growth. The core measure to bring about this
decoupling is “getting the prices right”, that is to say internalising the
external costs of transport. But apart from using economic instruments to
render the transport sector more sustainable, new socio-cultural visions and
distinct political targets have to be devised. Already now, there are a number
of available approaches upon which to hinge a more reflexive, i.e.
self-critical, mobility view. They comprise instruments such as “sufficiency”
and “transport avoidance” or more radical notions such as “slowness” (as, for
example, employed by the “slow city” movement and “street reclaiming”).
What these themes have in
common is that they advocate a mobility reform that is essentially social,
because they question the way we interact with and relate to each other. As a
result, they often reward the communities which seek to slow down and travel
less, with a perceived increase in life quality. This sort of instant
gratification must be seen as a crucial point when communicating EST in
contemporary society. It is an important addition to the argument that
sustainable transport is of benefit for future generations, because it
as well highlights the immediate benefits from EST for current generations
– a theme which is not fully explored in the draft report.
The technology – integrating
transportation’s Large Technological Systems
In modern societies,
technological systems play an immensely important role – because they accompany
and accelerate social change. In fact, within the transport sector, technological
innovations have been a major driving factor. In the beginning of the 20th
century, it was the automobile – at the end, it was telecommunications, which
transformed and further mobilised society. Clearly, sustainable transport
cannot be achieved without or even against technological innovations.
Current transport
policies, though, often seem to favour technological developments, which run
the risk of having an adverse effect on sustainability. Two examples may
clarify this problematic relationship between transport and technology
policies.
1. The
technological improvement of the car that was brought about by tougher emission
and fuel standards has improved air-quality in many European cities. Other
technical interventions have increased fuel-efficiency and lowered
GHG-emissions of the single car. Although these technical fixes are cherished
by the industry as environmental successes, they have severe repercussions on
the whole car system. The environmental gains from making the single car
cleaner have been ought-weighed by a growing production of cars, leading to,
for example, an increased land-take for transport infrastructure and rising
noise levels in urban areas. Here, environmental success is only partial.
2.
Another
very dubious policy is to direct substantial resources towards the construction
of “Large Technological Systems” that do not fit into the existing transport
system. For example, the ongoing attempts to install a magnetic train in
Germany (“Metrorapid”, formerly “Transrapid”) are questionable because similar
results can be achieved more cost-efficiently by improving existing
rail-infrastructure. Moreover, this project illustrates another problem of
technological development within the transport sector, that is to say the
creation of new demand. So far, most of the technical innovations within
transport have generated their own demand rather than re-directed existing
demand to more sustainable modes of transport. This policy needs to be revised
if the long-term goals of EST are to be attained.
What is needed is a
substantial shift in the development and implementation of transport-related
technologies. On the one hand, priority ought to be given to technologies that
enhance the integration of different modes of transport and hence promote more
sustainable mobility. Examples of this are “integrated/electronic ticketing” or
the use of so-called “smart cards” in relation to car-sharing. On the other
hand, technological development must be coupled with demand management policies
in order to avoid that they solely increase capacity and generate new demand
for travel. Any new technology that receives public funds should be subject to
an assessment that considers the overall effects on transport demand and volume
– this will also help to question dubious claims such as the one that
teleconferencing, teleshopping or telecommuting will essentially lead to a
reduction of transport.
Recommendations
Against the background of
the above comments, we outline a number of recommendations
on the use of soft measures with respect to EST. Particular
emphasis is given to the European perspective, which is to say the steps that
are necessary at EU-level to enhance the use and impact of soft measures.
1. Develop more mid-term and
long-term visions of sustainable transport and combine them with strict
environmental targets. Such ambitious targets should resemble a political goal
rather than scientific limit value (an example is the "vision zero"
in road safety debates). Tough political targets may as well involve sensitive
issues such as a "cap" on air-traffic volume or even on private
car-ownership, in order to create awareness.
2. Provide for cross-cultural
knowledge transfer, that is to say, let experts from different disciplines
exchange their ideas on sustainable transport. It is important to realise that
expert knowledge and first-hand experience is often already out there - but
insufficiently recognised and integrated. In particular, include experts from
disciplines that are normally placed at the fringe of transport studies. Social
scientists, for example, are increasingly contributing to the knowledge
production within transport science. Here lies a huge potential for
knowledge-transfer.
3.
Explore
and test alternative technical innovations that will improve sustainable
transport. Many of the current R&D efforts are "auto-oriented"
and seek to provide new technical solutions for the car and its complementary
infrastructure only (examples are the fuel cell, or intelligent road guidance
systems). Therefore, more technical applications, which will facilitate a
better use of sustainable modes of transport (examples are "smart
cards" and electronic ticketing) are needed.
December
2002
---end---