Sustainable Transport and Reflexive Mobility –
Definitely
economically feasible and always socially acceptable
Jörg
Beckmann, European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E)
Introduction
There is a widespread consensus within the
transport sector that its current performance is not sustainable. We all more or less agree that the way
our society has organised the transport of people and goods is partially
socially unjust, economically unfair and environmentally unsound. Moreover,
there is agreement on some of the basic principles with which to achieve
sustainable transport, such as “internalising external costs”, “the user pays
principle” or “fair competition between different modes”. But this is it. This
is probably as far as the consensus goes. Although nearly all social actors are
able to subscribe to the common vision of “sustainable transport”, the most
influential of them are usually not wiling to move towards its implementation.
As if this lack of political will did not suffice, governments and industries
often speak with one voice, when they reject implementation strategies with
comments such as “not acceptable” or “not feasible”. Despite industries and
governments embracing the common vision of sustainable transport, legal and
regulatory measures aiming to improve both transport and the environment are
turned down because it is said that such measures are neither socially
accepted nor economically feasible. “Zero acceptability” or “beyond feasibility” are
the general accusations which “green” transport activists and planners have
heard over and over again. It is now time to deconstruct these empty phrases
and show that sustainable transport is always socially acceptable and
definitely economically feasible.
Therefore,
in the first part of this paper, we outline why both the social acceptability
and economic feasibility of sustainable transport are generally high.
Consequently, we forward a number of well-established arguments for sustainable
transport and transpose them into the context of debates on which measures
count as feasible and acceptable and which do not.
The
arguments mentioned here have framed the work of T&E throughout the past
and will continue to do so in the future. It is essential to stress that
despite the consensus on the unsustainability of transport, important policy
recommendations of T&E and other environmental NGOs are far from being
properly implemented into policymaking. This lacking consideration of
sustainable measures by policymakers certainly justifies reinforcing our
message that sustainable transport is always socially acceptable and
definitely economically feasible. However, the prominent lack of a
political will to integrate the environment into the transport sector (for
instance within the European Commission) also prompts us to raise the question
of “why is there such a lack?”, and even more important “what needs to be done
to stimulate such will?”.
Therefore,
in the second part of this paper a new concept is presented that seeks to
provide some initial answers to these questions. This concept is that of
“reflexivity”, i. e. the ability of an individual, an organisation or a
sector as a whole to be self-referential, self-analytical, self-interpreting
and self-critical. We then propose to improve the reflexivity of crucial
transport actors such as global corporations, European administrations and
national governments. We argue that in order for sustainability to work these
institutions have to change their outlook on transport and mobility. We claim
that sustainable transport policy starts within the organisations that are
making transport policies. In fact, it begins in the mind of the desk officer,
engineers or planners, who provide their input into this policy process. All of
these individuals and organisations need to come up with a more “reflexive
mobility view”, in order to develop the political will to implement sustainable
transport policies.
This
proposal must be seen as a result of us rethinking our daily work as an
environmental NGO. We have come to understand that making transport more
sustainable is not possible without making relevant organisations more
reflexive. Using this assumption as a starting point for our argument, we
suggest to complement sustainable transport with the notion of reflexive
mobility.
The
notion of reflexive mobility aims at highlighting an alternative social vision
for future transport. It fully supports sustainable transport policies as well
as the principles promoted by them. But it also reaches beyond the transport
sector and seeks to provide a leitmotif for all kinds of different mobilities.
The leitmotif that it introduces to the transport debate is that of
“reflexivity”. Reflexive mobilisation, then, describes the attempt of a society
to allow for a fairer distribution of mobility.
By introducing the notion of “reflexive mobility” to
a debate on “the fundamental drivers of transport demand”, this paper seeks to
go beyond a mere management of these drivers. Rather then managing social,
economic or technological drivers, we need to change them! In light of this,
reflexivity appears as an instrument to transform the public and private
organisations that are reproducing these drivers of transport demand.
Reflexivity, then, aims at implementing an often-cited “global responsibility”
within transnational organisations like the aviation industry or the European
Commission. The claim is that managing the fundamental drivers of transport
demand requires, first and foremost, a different (and more reflexive) mobility
view within these organisations – it requires changing the way people and
organisations conceptualise transport and mobility.
Definitely economically feasible
Sustainable transport is definitely economically
feasible. In general, it makes little sense to claim that internalising the
external costs of transport is economically unfeasible, or even worse, bad for
the economy. In fact, the opposite is the case: less transport is good for
the economy! Why? Because a reduction of transport will increase both
economic efficiency and productivity. It will stimulate a more efficient use of
scarce resources, such as energy, land or clean air, and it will increase the
economic productivity in those regions that have suffered from an unbalanced
distribution of wealth due to spatial concentration and centralisation
processes.
What kind of economic instruments have to be
introduced in the transport sector to enhance efficiency and productivity, and
promote sustainability? In order to bring about sustainable transport, it is vital
to implement appropriate charging schemes that take the external costs of
transport into consideration. At the time being, political decision-makers in
Europe are caught up in a discussion on the accuracy of different methodologies
to estimate the social marginal costs of transport. Economists have proposed a
number of ways to reach the “perfect price” by considering people’s
“willingness to pay”, or determining the actual costs to avoid a further
degradation of the environment. These scientific debates were of crucial
importance at a time when it was necessary to raise awareness and improve
knowledge about the monetary dimension of transport’s damaging impacts on human
health and natural environment. As we have come to understand the relationship
between transport, the economy and the environment, it is now time for
immediate and consistent political action. Instead of finding the exact price
to cover the social marginal costs, we need to ask ourselves and decide “how
much transport do we want?” So instead of “short-circuiting” a political debate
on sustainable transport economists, ought to help implementing the economic
and fiscal measures designed to reach the political goals that civil society
has set for itself.
Transport pricing is an efficient measure to meet
international targets for the reduction of GHG-emissions, to reduce noise and
air-pollution in urban areas and to make the roads safer for all citizens. The
way forward is to set targets such as those in the Kyoto Protocol and ensure
that the transport sector will meet them. The price for transport in the
European Union is thus inevitably linked to the environmental indicators and
targets that were agreed upon by European governments. The purpose of pricing
is to improve economy and environment, not to perform an academic exercise in
transport economics.
Any transport pricing reform will have to reflect
the need for reducing transport volume. The way to achieve this is by
increasing the costs of infrastructure use and making the user/polluter pay for
it. Consequently, transport has to become more expensive in relation to other
factors such as labour. If the costs of labour are reduced and those of
transport increased, regional production, distribution and consumption cycles
will benefit – and if the costs of unsustainable transport modes are increased
relatively more than those of less polluting ones, the environmental
performance of the whole sector will improve.
In order to facilitate this “levelling of the
playing field”, the revenues from environmentally differentiated charges should
be used to promote the less polluting modes of transport. Once the “sticks” are
bundled with “carrots”, feasibility and acceptability of any price-reform
within the transport sector will certainly grow. In a highly mobile society,
the feasibility of restricting the use of unsustainable modes is essentially a
function of the successful provision of other, less polluting means of
transportation.
Always socially acceptable
The social acceptability of policies that are of
benefit to society as a whole is per se high. The fact that certain
social groups may find their privileges threatened should not have an influence
on whether the very policy in question counts as socially acceptable or not.
Making transport more sustainable qualifies as such a policy because it offers
mid-term benefits as well as instant gratification for future and current
generations. The negative stance of certain industries, such as the aviation or
shipping industry towards more sustainable pricing policies is understandable,
but cannot prohibit the social necessity of integrating the environment into
the transport sector.
Not
only are certain transport industries unwilling to accept that which is
socially necessary, they are also employing the term “acceptability” to dismiss
any progressive policy towards more sustainable transport. The opponents of
truly sustainable transport frequently bring the notion of acceptability into
play in order to evoke the myth that “people do not like a certain policy”, and
thereby justifying one’s own unwillingness to act. Using social acceptability
in order to promote self-interest, however, reflects a distinct degree of
social ignorance (rather than a social responsibility that one should expect
from the global transport industry).
Moreover,
when speaking of “acceptability”, it is in many cases helpful to be more to the
point and to replace the term “social” with “individual”. Changing the
transport patterns of society begins with changing the transport behaviour of
individuals. Hence, it is important to achieve both an overall social
acceptance and an individual acceptance of sustainable transport policies.
Below, we will now demystify the notion of “acceptability” and try to explain
what makes sustainable transport policies both individually and socially
beneficial and acceptable. The argument is that once the benefits of
sustainable transport are immediately realised, widely perceived, and better
communicated, their individual and social acceptance will improve.
§
Individual acceptability
In
order to increase individual acceptability of sustainable transport policies,
local, regional and national governments need to address the lack of awareness,
concern, information, adequate professional advice, and rational behaviour.
This is usually done by “greening” the cognitive-rational responses of
individual transport users to the environmental problems of motorised
transport. The focus is on explaining the citizen, 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 individual acceptance.
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 “public education” we would also suggest offering more “public
seduction”. What does that mean?
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-advertisement, but is unfortunately found in the draft version of a forthcoming
OECD report on environmentally sustainable transport. It is equally important
for any attempt to overcome individual barriers and attain sustainable
transport, to emphasise the inconveniences that come along with
car-ownership and point at the personal benefits derived from walking and
biking.
§
Social
acceptability
The
social acceptability of measures to change people’s transport patterns
increases as these measures are introduced. But in order to stimulate the
introduction of such measures and to show how socially acceptable sustainable
transport is, the “mobility view” of decision-makers has to change. Just as
much as the success of sustainable transport policies depends upon individual
transport behaviour, it needs political action to establish a framework for
social acceptance. Studies have shown that dominant beliefs among transport
politicians often underestimate the electorate’s acceptance of what is good for
the environment. In other words, people are generally more positive towards measures
that promote sustainable transport, than political decision-makers believe them
to be.
Therefore,
in order for sustainable transport to be implemented, 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 quality of life. This
sort of instant gratification must be seen as a crucial argument to communicate
the social acceptability of sustainable transport. It is an important addition
to the argument that sustainable transport is of benefit to future
generations, because it as well highlights the immediate benefits to current
generations.
To summarise, the above arguments mainly illustrate
two points. Firstly, they show that sustainable transport policies are socially
(and individually) acceptable as well as economically feasible simply by
highlighting their beneficial contribution both to the economy and society.
Secondly, it becomes clear that both terms are often employed for blocking
necessary measures to change a currently unsustainable transport system. On
this view, acceptability and feasibility appear as mere constructions – as
“empty phrases” – used to counteract policies that will challenge current power
structures within the transport system. Dominant transport actors frequently
evoke such phrases and question the acceptability and feasibility in order to
protect their very own interests, rather than to recall their social
responsibility.
Any move towards a more sustainable transport system
relies essentially on a changing world-outlook within the relevant industries
and of current political decision-makers. The promotion of another “mobility
view” amongst those actors is necessary. A key characteristic of such reformed
mobility views is the degree of reflexivity of an organisation or institution
active in the field of transport. In other words, there is a necessity to look
upon our own doings in a more self-critical fashion and measure the validity of
our actions against the negative impacts they have on other social subsystems,
such as the economy or the environment. This need for more self-critical action
within the transport sector may be captured under the leitmotif of “reflexive
mobility”.
Reflexive
Mobility
It If one checks out the relevant documents
published over the last decade by any European transport professionals; if one
looks into the pamphlets of car-manufacturers, airlines or public transport
companies; if one sifts through the policy documents of lobbyists, transport
planners and decision-makers or if one screens the daily papers and life-style
magazines in any European language for articles on transport, traffic or
mobility a great alliance will emerge. Across the trenches, all organisations
within the field of transport claim to promote sustainability. Any
organisation, disregarding whether it produces SUVs, operates airports or plans
Trans-European Networks maintains acting in a sustainable way. It seems as if
environmental activists have achieved their ultimate aim: a comprehensive
integration of the environment into the transport sector.
However, a closer look reveals that this is not the
case. Despite the claims of industry and governments, environmental performance
of transport is declining. True sustainability is far from being achieved
within the sector. On the one hand this is due to a variety of interpretations
of what counts as sustainable and what does not. On the other hand, it is due
to the contradictory outcome of some so-called sustainable actions. We have
come to learn that certain measures intended to promote sustainability may
sometimes very well be charged in ambiguity. A few examples will clarify this
point:
§
The
technical improvements of passenger cars which make the single vehicle cleaner
and more efficient may very well turn
against themselves and pave the way for a persistent increase in total
number of cars. Some end-of-the-pipe technologies help to mitigate air
pollution and hence improve air and life quality in urban areas. But the
immediate gains in quality of life may turn out to be mid-term losses as an
increasing mass of clean cars conquers ever more urban space. By solving one
problem, some technical solutions may create others.
§
Measures
to promote public transport, as well-intended as they were, have often caused a
mere re-balancing of the modal split amongst the already environmentally sound
modes. Green commuters oscillated between bikes and buses, while drivers
remained in their cars. Here, as well, a sustainable policy has somehow turned against itself.
§
The
ecological production of food does not necessitate ecological distribution and
consumption of food. The environmental balance of Egyptian eco-potatoes sold in
bio-food stores in Germany is shattered by the unsustainable transport from one
continent to another. Often enough, as green food has entered the global
market, it has also come to turn against
itself, that is to say, it can no longer be considered as fully sustainable
food.
What these examples illustrate is the fact that
certain measures and policies, which are presented as making a contribution to
sustainability, may not do this in a sustainable way. The label “sustainable”
(as it is currently used by various many governments and industries) may not guarantee
that a measure does not turn against itself and contradict its intentions.
It is important to recognise that this
“Turning-Against-Itself” of all sorts of social or political processes appears
to be one of the crucial characteristics of modern societies. It also has
become one of the key-categories that govern social research ever since the
1990’s. Its rise to popularity begins with Ulrich Beck’s notion of the Risk Society – a society that is no
longer merely concerned with the production of “goods”, but with the
distribution and re-distribution of “bads”, i. e. risks to both the
natural environment as well as human health. Beck and others understand this
“Turning-Against-Itself” as somewhat of a reflexive process. Here, reflexivity
is used as a descriptive term. It describes how the unintended consequences of
a (transport) policies impact upon the very policy itself.
Against this background, reflexivity could serve as
a descriptive characteristic of certain phenomena we often witness in relation
to transport politics. As the above examples illustrate, current transport
policies seem to be charged with a variety of reflexive processes that
contradict the policies’ very own intentions.
However, apart from this “descriptive” use of
reflexivity, one can also envision a more normative employment of the term. In
this light, reflexivity may also be understood as an overarching leitmotif for
that very structural change T&E and others have been campaigning for. As
such a leitmotif, reflexivity would be totally in line with the principles of
sustainability as they were outlined in the Brundtland report. Sustainable
transport is then the objective of a policy that aims at promoting reflexive mobility.
This invention of reflexive mobility politics appears necessary as we have come to
notice that sustainable transport is endowed with numerous issues that are
normally not covered by transport experts. Societies at the beginning of the 21st
century are confronted with the complex task of providing, managing, and controlling
the mobility of people and goods. The actual transport form A to B is merely
one of the many problems faced by future mobility managers. What they will be
confronted with is an array of interdependent problems that stretch over
different policy areas. For instance, transport politics border on justice and
home affairs in the case of immigration. International airports, the channel
tunnel and port-cities are more than transport hubs or missing links, they are
turned into sites for a struggle over European security issues. Technology
politics are merging with transport planning and allow for the improvement of
“intermodality” so that traditional distinctions between public and private,
rail and road, motorised and non-motorised transport fade away. Geographic
positioning and satellite systems in conjunction with road pricing are raising
new questions at the border of traffic system management and civil
surveillance. Demographic changes (an increasing share of elderly people),
cultural transitions (integration and assimilation issues), and new social
conflicts (between a “mobile” global and an “immobile” local class) will also
have their implications on the future of sustainable transport.
These are but a few of the issues in the structural
transformation of transport and mobility. Introducing reflexivity amongst
experts and decision-makers will help to deal with such necessary structural
changes in a more sustainable way. Now, and in order to render “reflexivity”
more practicable and translate it into policymaking, a first step could look
like this. Let’s envisage a cycle called the reflexivity cycle. Within that
cycle, reflexivity has four stages, spanning from a descriptive to a more
normative interpretation. The stages are a) self-reference, b) self-analysis,
c) self-interpretation and d) self-criticism. How are these stages to be
understood in the context of transport and traffic?
§
Self-reference: Self-reference describes
the fact that transport development has turned against itself. It has come to
threaten its own foundations; it destroys the resources it relies on. The daily
traffic jam is the most illustrative example of how a certain form of mobility
has produced its own contrary – immobility – and thus turned against itself.
§
Self-analysis: From this sort of “simple
reflexivity” (understood as self-reference) a process of self-analysis would be
the next logical step. An illustration of how self-analysis has become an
integral part of transport politics and planning is the environmental impact assessment
(EIA) and the strategic environmental assessment (SEA). With the EIA and SEA,
reflexivity has reached another stage: from a mere turning against itself and
has become a tool for policy-making.
§
Self-interpretation: This is clearly the stage
at which complexity rises. The results of the SEA or EIA are fed back into
transport policy making. However, even the clearest outcomes of such
assessments are open to different interpretations from various sides. The way
the results are read and reintroduced into politics is not necessarily
predetermined by the assessments’ methods, but also depends on their
interpretation by politicians and planners. In order to be in line with the
leitmotif of “reflexive mobility”, such political interpretations ought to be self-critical,
that is to say, critical of the interpreter’s very own role.
§
Self-criticism: Any organisation, policy or
action that endorses this last stage of “reflexivity as self-criticism” has
certainly made a big step forward in implementing reflexive mobility. It has
moved from forwarding simple “solutions” to complex transport problems, to
promoting “structural changes” of everyday mobility.
Clearly, self-reference, self-analysis,
self-interpretation and self-criticism are to be seen as guiding principles for
any organisation active in the field of transport. Transport planners,
suppliers and politicians must reflect upon the negative environmental impacts
of their plans, products and politics. They ought to be aware of the unintended
consequences that are likely to exist for any plan, product or policy, which is
being developed. This change in individual attitude, company culture or world
outlook is a necessary condition for organisational reflexivity and reflexive
mobility to work. Already today some of these principles are part of some
company plans or integrated into some governmental policies.
For instance, an early illustration of such a shift
towards more reflexivity can be found in the Danish national transport plan
from 1993, entitled “Traffic 2005”. Unlike the two predecessors from 1987 and
1990, this plan openly questions the assumption that transport and mobility
produce societal benefits only. It expresses doubts, for instance, as to the
status of traffic forecasting. Whereas the other two plans by and large
interpret such prognoses as facts, this plan understands them as possible,
rather than likely, future traffic scenarios
(Trafik 2005: 5,6). Traffic 2005
reacts to anticipated traffic growth in other ways than merely providing more infrastructure;
it also considers proactive
responses, that is, to step in and change various collective and individual
transport demands[2] (Trafik 2005: 10,13). Furthermore, it acknowledges the negative
consequences of road building and seeks to introduce other means of both
ensuring traffic flow and protecting nature and culture from the side-effects
of car-use (Trafik 2005: 30, 67). The implicit doubt and
“openness” of the plan is, however, best expressed in the catalogue of
questions concluding the introductory chapters (Trafik 2005: 12,13).
Here, traffic is explicitly dealt with in terms of the questions and
ambiguities it produces, rather than in the “old” terms of providing access and
sustaining flow.
Clearly, for the most part, the plan is anything but
overly optimistic towards the social benefits of new transport technologies.
For example, it either openly recognises that certain technological
interventions will increase road capacity and, thus, enhance traffic growth, or
it assumes a critical stance towards the potentials of intelligent transport
systems (Trafik 2005: 35). This partial techno-scepticism is accompanied by an
emphasis on individual mobility behaviour and transport demand. The plan
suggests that in addition to planning for
the traffic system, future policies should be working with the transport user (Trafik 2005: 15).
This Danish example provides an illustration of how
to make transport politics more reflexive. But it also highlights that such a
shift may not be durable, as the recent transport political transformations in
Denmark suggest. With the closure of progressive institutions and proposal of
unsustainable and unsafe transport measures Danish transport politics has now
lost its reflexive momentum again.
Conclusion
– making reflexivity work
Against this background, transport and mobility
appear to be important areas for the implementation of reflexive politics. If,
in addition to sustainability, reflexivity is introduced in these areas,
sustainable transport will be complemented with reflexive mobility. What, then,
does reflexive mobility actually mean? The term reflexive mobility captures
those mobilities that are self-critical. In other words, mobilities that take a
more critical stance towards their own unintended consequences. An example for
a certain type of mobility becoming more reflexive is automobility itself, i.e.
the type of everyday mobility that is performed by car. With car-sharing,
automobility has developed some sort of a reflexive branch. As some countries
and cities have implemented car-sharing schemes for their citizens, they take a
more critical perspective on one of the fundamental drivers of automoblity,
which is private car-ownership. Car-sharing must then be understood as a
reflexive approach to the self-produced capacity problems of the private car in
urban areas. An entirely non-reflexive approach tackling these “bottlenecks”
would be the continuous extension of road infrastructure, because no attention
is paid to the unintended consequence of such a measure, which is to say the
creation of an ever increasing demand for cars. From a sustainable transport
perspective hardly any road infrastructure extension appears to be reflexive,
since more roads will induce further growth. The cardinal goal of making mobility
more reflexive is therefore to reduce and avoid certain
unsustainable forms of transport.
To
summarise, the purpose of the second part of this paper was to outline the
necessity for a more self-critical view amongst the dominant transport actors. Only
by establishing a more reflexive relationship towards mobility can sustainable
transport be achieved. Reflexivity is, hence, the precondition for
sustainability. It is the cognitive-rational basis for “sustainable transport
conduct” on both a personal and organisational level.
All actors in society, whether they are individuals
or groups, need to ask themselves if their mobility view is reflexive. Or, in
other words, there has to be a continuous public debate on where we want to
move towards: do we want to pursue the traditional development path and
provide ever-more infrastructure for ever-faster means of transport in order to
travel ever-further at ever-higher frequency? Or do we wish to perform a
U-turn, step aside and stop riding the juggernaut. Wouldn’t it be better to
leave this “rushing standstill” of our presence in order to pave the way for a
more sustainable kind of transport and mobility in the future? If our answer to
the last question is “yes”, then a more reflexive relationship towards transport
and mobility will certainly help us.
To conclude, we propose the following policy
recommendations:
§
In
order to ensure the economic feasibility of sustainable transport it is now
time for immediate and consistent political action. The way forward is to set
targets such as those in the Kyoto Protocol and ensure that the transport
sector will meet them. Instead of continuing the debates on finding the exact
price to cover the social marginal costs, political decision makers at EU level
should finally adopt the long-awaited Framework Directive on Infrastructure
Charging and start working on relevant Daughter Directives for all modes of
transport.
§
Social
acceptability of measures to promote sustainable transport expands
exponentially whenever their success is tangible and direct personal benefits
are experienced. This sort of instant gratification is most strongly
appreciated, where transport problems are most severe, such as in Europe’s
urban areas. Therefore, European legislation on urban transport is most needed.
The European Commission ought to expand its activities in this field and move
from promoting Best Practice to implementing binding targets and legislation.
§
An
initial step on an EU-level towards more reflexive mobility politics would comprise
the establishment of a sustainability impact assessment, as requested by
the Gothenburg Council in June 2001. Any transport-related policy, plan or
project ought to be subject to an assessment that scrutinises their impacts on
all three dimensions of sustainability. In addition to subjecting transport
programmes to an SEA and transport projects to an EIA, European policies in
areas like taxation, technology, competition etc. ought to be subject to this
assessment. The sustainability impact assessment should then clearly show what
the positive and negative feedbacks are for the overarching goal of achieving
sustainable transport and reflexive mobility. It should provide the yardstick
by which to measure the reflexivity of transport-related policies in the EU.
December 2002
---end---