Search results

Public participation is sometimes suggested as a way to establish legitimacy for contentious policies needed to realise a transformation in the transport sector to meet sustainability and climate goals. In this chapter, we first aim to summarise and draw conclusions from each part of the book, not least in relation to the transformative potential of public participation in the sector. The chapter also suggests recommendations for further research in the field. Important topics discussed are the diversity of public participation in transport; limits to participation; the specifics of participation in the field of transport; and the issue of consensus and dissensus. As regards transformation of the sector, public participation is considered a prerequisite, but the book also includes several cases where public participation does not seem to possess a transformational potential. We suggest representative, deliberative forms of participation as a possible solution to overcome dilemmas of representativeness, (lack of) knowledge, and the participation burden. We conclude that public participation is not easy, it has to be prepared and designed carefully to avoid unexpected consequences, and there is currently a need for more experiments and pilot projects on public participation in the field of transport.

In this chapter, the authors will summarise the entire book and look ahead. The aim of this book has been to take the calls for governance of smart mobility one step further by analysing and discussing current and future policy instruments to govern smart mobility. The task has been carried out by discussing the why, how and what of policy instruments. So far, the policy instruments governing smart mobility to a large extent are focussed on understanding this new field of mobility, establishing relations and roles between companies and authorities, and making the field governable. What is lacking in this equation are policy instruments that establish the population as citizens with rights, voices and roles. In order to align the smart mobility transition and the transition towards a sustainable society, the authors consider the development of deliberative citizen participation an important initiative and the authors suggest it as an important field for future research.

A general global wave of public participation is occurring. Students and researchers as well as civil servants, policy-makers, and NGO representatives are encouraged to study, propose, and engage in public participation. New innovative forms of participation are suggested, and experiments in participation are ongoing locally and nationally. Within the transport sector, most studies of participation focus on road infrastructure and other land use changes. However, for other areas within transport, studies are limited and fragmented. Based on this, we see a need for a volume on public participation in transport, aimed at practitioners, students, and researchers, in what are unarguably times of change. The overall aim of the volume is to provide examples of different forms of public participation in transport, which can work as a setting for further analyses and discussions of public participation in transport. Drawing on different cases, eight empirical chapters are presented covering three main themes: grass-roots participation initiatives, participation in unconventional areas, and public participation that throws up unexpected results. In this introductory chapter, we set the scene for later discussions and analyses of public participation in transport. This chapter also provides an overview of the structure and content of the volume.

The point of departure of this book is that smart mobility will only be developed in a desired direction and fulfil societal objectives if it is steered in that direction. The market, left to itself, will most certainly not deliver on these objectives. This message has been conveyed extensively in recent literature, but this book aims to take this discussion one step further by focussing on what governance of smart mobility looks like today and in the future. In this introductory chapter, the authors provide a framework of different understandings of policy instruments, how they are selected, developed and used. After the array of policy instruments within the transport sector has been extensively discussed, the authors turn to discussing a broader understanding of policy instruments found within political science and political sociology. In doing so, this book contributes to the critical scholarship on policy instruments, while exploring the why, the how and the what of policy instruments in relation to smart mobility. The chapter closes with a brief introduction to the structure of the book as well as a description of the content of each chapter.

The aim of this chapter is to analyse how the governing capacity of current policy instruments might be affected in futures of smart mobility. In order to explore this issue, the authors make use of the so-called NATO (nodality, authority, treasure, organisation) framework for analysing two contrasting scenarios. The analyses show that the overall governing capacity of many of the policy instruments is strengthened or maintained in both of the scenarios. However, the governing capacity of some policy instruments is reduced, and some seem to need calibration, not least because authorities’ access to and control over data are under question. Future governing capacity hinges on access to data, although all resources are, in one way or another, affected.

Urban transport plays a key role in reducing climate gas emissions. However, public policies are developed and implemented in an increasingly complex, fragmented, and multilevelled society. This chapter focuses on how interactive political leadership can address challenges related to spatial justice, network cooperation, and communication to increase legitimate and robust policies. Through in-depth case studies of the Norwegian urban regions of Trondheim and Nord-Jaeren, the importance of ensuring broad political alliances, handling spatial complexity, strong political leadership, as well as engaging in dialogue and communication with the public is shown. This may be more challenging to achieve in a complex institutional structure. We argue that governance structures reflect dynamics of the urban regions in which they are implemented. Related to our two empirical cases, the urban structure of Nord-Jaeren is more complex, compared to that of Trondheim, and likewise is their governance network. Linking the conditions of interactive political leadership to the three interconnected urban governance challenges, we see that contextual characteristics are important to explain differences in political leadership and public engagement.

With the plethora of smart mobility innovations, their applications, and their pace of change, it is easy to get distracted by what these innovations can (potentially) do, rather than what we want or need them to do, if we are to meet our societal goals. The focus of this chapter is therefore on the extent to which smart mobility can help create policy change towards the goal of low carbon mobility. The concept of policy is broken down into its component parts, to outline the relationship between policy goals and policy instruments, and identifies the key tools underpinning policy instruments. In turn, the chapter situates policy instruments within an understanding of policy change and triggers for policy change, arguing there are two key ways in which transformative change can occur; exogenously and endogenously. The chapter argues that the onset of smart mobility does not suggest an exogenous shock to the current policy system, in which smart mobility disrupts the authority and beliefs inherent within the current policy approach to mobility. Smart mobility therefore in and of itself is unlikely to lead to a radical policy shift towards low carbon. However, in understanding smart mobility innovations as policy instruments, it is possible to envisage smart mobility incrementally changing policy towards low carbon mobility, if opportunities for reflexivity and learning are embedded within local policy contexts.

New economies based on emerging technologies for shared mobility and autonomous vehicles will shape future urban transport systems, but their potential impacts are uncertain. Internationally, government agencies face difficult challenges to effectively plan and regulate the deployment of these technologies for the common good, whilst simultaneously encouraging innovation. Being both a facilitator and an umpire is not an easy task. This chapter draws on a series of interviews with public and private-sector actors in urban transport in Australia. Unsurprisingly, all private-sector respondents had significant concerns for the sustainability of their business in the emerging mobility markets, but it was generally acknowledged that without government support and partnership, a lack of structure and clarity could lead to natural monopolies with negative consequences for competition and the public good. Strong and clear government regulation is seen to be necessary to allow the sector to reach its maximum potential and have positive ramifications for both the public and the private good – outcome not always seen as compatible. Public-sector interviewees generally recognised that much of the necessary innovation was being shaped by the market, and that there had been a considerable loss of skills over decades from the state because of neo-liberal policies. So, some doubted the ability of the state to shape developments using currently available planning and public policy methods and feared that it would be difficult to regulate emergent markets to prevent monopolies emerging. On the other hand, some argued that many firms are looking to government for frameworks in which businesses can operate successfully by setting conditions in which risks could be managed. This chapter discusses these issues, seeking to guide research agendas and to foster further debate. The evidence gained from these in-depth interviews helps focus attention on which forms of regulation might be required by industry. It also raises questions about the capacity of government agencies to effectively manage these complex transitions.