Public Mobility: Prerequisites for human-oriented transport planning 3658395788, 9783658395780

Citation preview

Oliver Schwedes   Editor

Public Mobility

Prerequisites for human-oriented transport planning

Public Mobility

Oliver Schwedes Editor

Public Mobility Prerequisites for human-oriented transport planning

Editor Oliver Schwedes TU Berlin Berlin, Germany

ISBN 978-3-658-39578-0    ISBN 978-3-658-39579-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The text was translated from German with DeepL and revised by Gregory Sims. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Contents

1 Introduction ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  1 Oliver Schwedes Part I Basics of Public Mobility�����������������������������������������������������������������  19 2 Public  Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 Oliver Schwedes and Roman Ringwald 3 Integration  and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning����������������������� 49 Oliver Schwedes 4 Participation  and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics����������������������� 71 Stephan Daubitz Part II Current Developments in Public Mobility: New Development Paths to a Human-­Centered Transport System ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  93 5 Public  Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions and Perspectives for Design������������������������������������������������� 95 Christina Wolking

v

vi

Contents

6 Public  Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin Bicycle Referendum�����������������������������������125 Dirk von Schneidemesser 7 Public  Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments and Paths to a Cultural Transport Turnaround�����������149 Maximilian Hoor Part III Current Developments in Public Mobility: New Instruments for the Design of Human-­Centered Transport ��������������������������� 177 8 Legitimizing  Public Mobility: The Berlin Mobility Act �����������������������179 Jens-Holger Kirchner 9 Funding  Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility Financing in Public Transport���������������������������������������������191 Oliver Mietzsch 10 Evaluating  Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement and Comparison Methods�����������������������������������������������215 Alexander Rammert 11 Shaping  Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting���������������������������������������241 Sven Hausigke and Carolin Kruse 12 Conclusion:  Transport Science as a Social Science�������������������������������269 Oliver Schwedes

1

Introduction Oliver Schwedes

The bluff of neo-liberalism has to be called and revealed for what it is. The public interest must once again come first in public policy. (Illou 2020)

Despite all the current social controversies, one thing seems certain: we are living in times of great social change (WBGU 2011). Some observers even interpret the societal conflicts as an expression of a general insecurity and see it as evidence of the societal changes taking place, as if profound societal changes are necessarily accompanied by an insecurity amongst the population, which feels unable to cope with the changes (ZLM 2019; Zweck et al. 2015). The supposedly new social phenomena such as anti-Semitism, misogyny, and racism seem to be explained in this way, if not excused by a frightened population. In contrast, German society in particular has shown since World War II that far-reaching social changes do not necessarily have to unsettle the population. After Germany had fought a world war that cost the lives of some 50 million people, rapid economic and social development took place without further ado, which obviously gave people no cause for irritation. Rather, the fascist society, that had shortly before organized the industrial extermination of millions of people, developed in a very short time into an economically extremely successful, internationally respected democracy. The re-­ establishment of Jewish communities in Germany did not lead to loud protests at O. Schwedes Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_1

1

2

O. Schwedes

the time, nor did the emancipation of women or the admission of migrant workers from Italy and Turkey.1 The fact that neither World War II nor the subsequent rapid social development led to insecurity among the German population was not without preconditions. To the extent that the German economy was able to build on the wartime successes without circumstance, the German state was able to finance a close-meshed network of social benefits and to develop into an extensive welfare state that provided its population with a comprehensive guarantee of security. This fairy-tale development was thus not a miracle, but was based on a material foundation  – social ­integration is something you have to want to be able to afford (Herrmann 2019). A central role in social cohesion was played by the German automobile, which established itself as a system-relevant economic factor and, by facilitating individual mobility, embodied both the promise of freedom and the self-realization characteristic of democratic societies (Sachs 1990). In contrast, public transport became associated with the collective socialization of the authoritarian societies that had just been left behind. From then on, mass automobilization set in at the expense of public transport, which became a shadow of its former self and today forms a residual part of the total transport volume, amounting to about 15%. The history of transport after the Second World War is a history of privatization. Publicly funded transportation, equally accessible to all, was replaced by privately funded automobile transportation, limited to personal access (Walks 2015). Nevertheless, it would be wrong to overstate this relatively short historical period as the transport evolution of modern societies (Rammler 2001). In contrast, we describe the history of transport in capitalist societies below as an ongoing political struggle between private actors and the public sector (see the contribution by Schwedes & Ringwald in this volume). In the process, the pendulum swung once in one direction and the other time in the other direction, without a conclusion being drawn to this day as to which is the correct solution (Filarski 2011). For public transport, which from a neo-liberal-modernization-theoretical point of view

 Nor should the student protests of 1968 be stylized in the spirit of their protagonists beyond what had already developed previously in the wider society (Hodenberg 2018). Even more, with regard to the gender question, the male protesters of 1968 even formed a reactionary bulwark. 1

1 Introduction

3

seemed to have reached its historical end, this opens up a new perspective, which we call Public Mobility.2

1 Market Integration versus Political Integration: Motorized Private Transport versus Public ­Transport Germany can still afford mass motorization today, and all forecasts assume further growth in the numbers of registered vehicles as well as in the number of kilometers traveled (Nobis and Kuhnimhof 2018). On the other hand, the question has recently been increasingly raised as to whether society wants to continue to be able to afford it (UBA 2016). While in the past, in light of the great economic importance of the industry and the many jobs involved, the answer to this question was always positive, the societal costs are now coming more into focus.3 While 10 years ago, during the financial and economic crisis, the automobile companies were given a ‘scrapping premium’ of 5 billion euros as part of the economic stimulus packages as a matter of course, the same companies were left empty-handed in the Corona pandemic, at least with regard to their core business of combustion-engine vehicles. While this event should not be overestimated, especially since lobbyists from politics and trade unions are currently working to put together another economic

 With his concept metropa, the artist and author Stefan Frankenberger designs a concrete utopia, which we take up and spell out using the example of Germany (see Fig. 1.1). Perhaps the simple evidence of this plan revives the persuasive power that the European project has currently lost. The high-speed rail network directly illustrates how European integration can be shaped in concrete terms and that it is a joint visionary project in which all countries must participate. Moreover, the plan shows that successful European integration cannot stop at its supposed borders; rather, the transport networks extend to neighboring countries to the east as well as to the south. Metropa stands for a conceivable political transport project that aims to ensure mobility for all people and whose success is measured by the degree of social participation. 3  A distinction must be made between the so-called external costs of car traffic, i.e. the costs to be borne by society due to health or environmental impacts, which amount to around140 billion euros per year (Infras 2019). In addition, there are the subsidies in the transport sector, such as the tax concession for company cars, the commuter allowance as well as the reduced diesel taxation, to name just the three most important facts in automobile transport. In addition, there is the tax exemption for aviation fuel and the VAT exemption for international flights. All in all, the transport sector is thus supported annually with further taxpayers’ money amounting to almost 30 billion euros – which, from the perspective of sustainable transport development, must clearly be assessed as a misguided subsidy (UBA 2016). 2

4

O. Schwedes

Fig. 1.1  metropa. (Source: © 2020 Stefan Frankenberger/studio77; more information on the project and webshop at www.metropa.eu (in the e-book as hyperlink))

1 Introduction

5

stimulus package to make up for what they missed out on – nevertheless, there is no doubt that something has changed politically! Formerly progressive social actors such as the industrial trade union Industriegewerkschaft Metall, can no longer credibly convey that they are defending sustainable jobs in the German automotive industry (Eckardt et al. 2020; Brand 2019). By defending an economic sector that for decades has been unwilling and incapable of reform, and without actively shaping change themselves, the unionists have mutated into reactionaries who are no longer perceived by growing segments of the population as part of the solution but as part of the problem (Strötzel 2020; Schroeder 2014). Not only the young generation of the Fridays for Future movement is further ahead here than the established social actors in politics and business; in the population as a whole, there is now a pronounced awareness of the problems regarding the automobile-driven transport sector (BMU and UBA 2019). With the inter-generational idea of sustainability, the transport policy agenda suddenly includes a focus on public spirit in the interest of the common good (Münkler and Bluhm 2001) – social categories that had been largely banished from public discourse during the previous decades of a neo-liberal hegemony. Automobilism is the ideal-typical expression of a neo-liberal notion of socialization that focuses on the state creating the conditions within which each individual member of society can pursue his or her personal interests, mediated by the market (Paterson 2007; Rajan 2006). Neo-liberalism cannot conceive of public spirit because, in its eyes, there is no entity capable of conceiving it, not even the State. Accordingly, from a neo-liberal perspective, the common good is also conceivable only as a derivative category that arises in the free market as the result of individual interests mediated through competition (Slobodian 2019). The counter-model to neo-liberal automobile transport is represented by public transport, which contributes to the common good as part of the provision of public services enshrined in the German constitution (Neu 2009). Public transport presupposes a ‘need for the state in society’ that neo-liberalism apodictically denies (Vogel 2007). Thus, public transport has to legitimize itself socially by referring to public goods that can only be determined through a process of political negotiation and cannot be produced through the market. While this was clear in the early days of public transport, as long as there was no alternative able to provide every citizen with a minimum of mobility, it came under increasing pressure to legitimize itself with the advent of the private automobile. As more and more citizens were able to afford a private car, the question of why public transport was still necessary became more pressing. Just how different the answers to this question can be is shown by looking at the United States of America, where political leaders at the time decided neither to nationalize private transport companies nor to subsidize them

6

O. Schwedes

through the public purse (see the contribution by Schwedes in this volume). This example points to the obviously not insignificant room for maneuver in transport policy in modern capitalist societies. What are we opting for today?

2 Re-Politicization of Transport Policy In the last three decades, the political sphere has transferred its power of control to private social actors by marketizing its public goods, thus increasingly disempowering itself (Engartner 2017). This has led to sometimes serious social dislocations, which are reflected particularly impressively in housing policy and at the same time show clear parallels to the transport sector (Helbig and Jähnen 2018). As a result, today the 20% of lower income earners have to allocate 40% of their ­household income to rent, while the upper income strata have to allocate only 20%. A similar social imbalance is evident when looking at transport, where upper income earners spend around 15% of their household income on mobility, compared to 30% for lower income earners (Dustmann et  al. 2018). Depending on social status, the population responds to this discrepancy with a variety of different populisms (Manow 2018). At the latest since the global financial and economic crisis, one finds indications of a political reassessment. On the one hand, the law and the legislature are no longer regarded primarily as derived variables of economic interests, but their independent role in setting priorities in relation to the economy is again being emphasized more strongly (Haucap and Budzinski 2020). In the many new areas of society that need to be regulated, lawyers and economists are once again entering into a more robust dialogue. For example, in the transport sector, where the power structure between employers and employees is in flux due to the strong position of small sectoral unions and needs to be readjusted. The common concern here is to find adequate solutions to problems “by means of which the justified interests of employees can be reconciled with the no less justified interests of the customers of transport services affected by industrial action in a way that is fair to all concerned” (Hipp and Knorr 2020, p. 300). Whereas neo-liberal state regulation in the past had long been oriented toward market requirements, forcing the establishment of a growing low-wage sector in the transport sector, for example, equal social interests are now being addressed again. By removing the one-sided orientation toward economic interests, new political options are opening up that give rise to social struggles; for what constitutes a ‘fair balance’ can only be fought for politically. With the associated new scope for action, a re-politicization is emerging in the field of transport policy after decades of depoliticization.

1 Introduction

7

The rediscovery of the responsibility of transport policy for the common good is also reflected in the new academic debate on the value of the public economy (Mühlenkamp et  al. 2019). Here, on the one hand, the  – until recently, long-­ forgotten – historical tradition of the public economy is taken up and, in addition, its major economic importance is pointed out (cf. Ambrosius 2019). In view of a state quota of more than 50%, the question even arises whether the economic system in Germany is still a market economy at all “or whether it has not long since become a state economy with associated market economy sub-divisions” (Dickermann and Strohe 2019, p. 180). In light of this, the central importance of the state for economic welfare becomes clear, as does the importance of political governance in the interest of the common good (Acemoglu and Robinson 2019; Mazzucato 2014). In this respect, it is an expression of neo-liberal hegemony when, in recent decades, the great importance of the automotive industry for the German economy has been repeatedly emphasized in light of the large number of jobs, without, however, referring in the same breath to the comparable economic relevance of public transport. This differentiated view leads to a basic insight of transport policy that we are only just now laboriously reacquiring: “In the interest of customers, the business management perspective of the respective organization cannot be the decisive factor in resolving the conflict of goals between entrepreneurship and the common good; a macroeconomic and ecological viewpoint appears to be expedient and appropriate” (Ackermann et al. 2019, p. 514). This perspective of societal integration has been disregarded under neo-liberal hegemony, in favor of the crude ideology of market integration.

3 Dare to Introduce More Democracy! While rediscovering the role of the state in pursuing the common good is an important prerequisite for regaining (transport) policy-making power, it is not possible to pick up directly where the old understanding of the state left off. To this day, the German tradition of constitutional law is characterized by the separation between the state and constitutional law on the one hand, and society on the other (Möllers 2008). Accordingly, the state apprehends the common good with a distanced view of society and, in return, provides the corresponding services within the framework of so-called services of general interest for all members of society equally. In doing so, it acts sovereignly vis-à-vis society, which has no say in the matter – thus assuming an authoritarian state (Günther 2004). At the same time, this was associated with the notion of the ‘autonomy’ of the administration, which is largely indepen-

8

O. Schwedes

dent of societal influence and oriented solely to the principles of administrative law (Seibel 2017). As a result, the separation of state and society led to a structural deficit of democracy that is still evident today. To be sure, in the late 1960s, with the rise in importance of the category of the ‘public sphere’ as a mediating concept between state and private forms of organization in German constitutional law, a new path of development opened up toward a democratic constitutional state that engages in cooperative ventures with private actors (Preuß 1969). However, this path has subsequently hardly been followed (Möllers 2008, p. 59 ff.). Accordingly, the common good today is still caught in a situation of largely unmediated tension between ‘the’ state on the one hand, which is itself no longer necessarily supposed to provide services in the interest of the common good, but remains responsible for ensuring that these services are at least available, and, on the other hand, ‘the’ public sphere, in which the common good has to be politically legitimized. As a result, the ­constitution of a public infrastructure policy today has to be re-founded in two respects. On the one hand, the role of the state and the administration must be renegotiated; the authoritarian state and its administration, which are detached from the citizens, must become more open to society than in the past. On the other hand, the decision concerning which public services are to be provided in the interest of the common good must be determined by means of new forms of participation on the part of civil society. The half-hearted campaign initiated by the SPD in the early 1970s, ‘We want to dare to introduce more democracy,’ should be pursued accordingly (Schildt and Schmidt 2019). The British group of academics Foundational Economy Collective4 (FEC 2019) has provided a convincing rationale for basic infrastructure services that are essential for the establishment of the common good and ensure a good life for all members of society: “These goods and services are necessary for everyday life, are used daily by all citizens regardless of income, and, depending on the population structure, are distributed via supply networks and branch networks. Some of these are non-market goods, usually protected against market forces, and some are produced or provided by private concessionaires under state sovereignty” (ibid., p. 64). The goods and services they refer to as the ‘foundationaleconomy’ include housing, education, child care, medical care, energy and water supply, and mobility. The British concept of the fundamental economy essentially corresponds to the German concept of public services, so that in the further development of public services we can build on the concept of the fundamental economy and, through our approach to public mobility, make it more concrete.  www.foundationaleconomy.com

4

1 Introduction

9

According to the FEC, four radical shifts in the relationship between state/administration and society are necessary in order to establish an ‘economy of everyday life’ that is oriented toward the concrete requirements and needs of people, rather than serving particular profit interests, and is no longer marked by an abstract, functional understanding of the state (ibid., p. 200 ff.). First, based on the insight that, when it comes to important political issues, citizens increasingly set different priorities than the established political parties, the state and administration should develop new formats of participation that go beyond merely consulting citizens. In light of this, the manifold social conflicts, especially in the field of transport policy, appear less as an expression of the crisis of democratic societies and more as an expression of a growing demand in civil society for democratic participation, which is not being met by established political parties and the state administration and which, viewed in this way, constitutes successful democratization (Rosanvallon 2017). However, democracy as a way of life needs public spaces, otherwise it is endangered (Rahden 2019). Accordingly, the public mobility we are proposing must be developed in close consultation with people locally. Unlike traditional public transport, which provided a service for ‘individual trips’ and also unlike its neo-liberal counterpart, which has recently discovered (well-heeled) customers for itself, public mobility is a citizens’ product. In order to make this possible, the centrally organized and hierarchically structured state and its administration must develop further into a welfare state in the service of freedom (Heinig 2008). While the successful implementation of a foundational economy based on the common good, such as the public mobility we are proposing requires, first, a shift of power away from the state and its administration in favor of civil society, the state must, second, strengthen its political influence over the economy. The one-­ sided promotion of the economy that has taken place in the course of neo-liberal hegemony should be supplemented by social operating licenses, which above all link the economic commitment of large companies with the pursuit of social goals oriented toward the common good. With a view to public mobility oriented to the concrete requirements and needs of the local population, the state and the public administration have the task of integrating the large number of private providers of mobility services into an overall communal strategy, oriented to the common good. The central challenge here is to shift the dominant dynamic of competition mediated by the market in favor of cooperative arrangements. In this way, for example, the manifold new mobility services could be integrated into a sustainable overall transport policy strategy instead of following the particular interests of individual startup companies, which occupy public urban space with their products with impunity, as has been the case in the past.

10

O. Schwedes

Political influence on the economy must, third, be flanked by a new tax system that meets the requirements of a public welfare-oriented transport policy. To this end, the prevailing negative understanding of state tax revenues, which today are perceived primarily as an onerous evil by both citizens and the business community, should first change. “Taxes are not a burden on the economy: they are the share of economic surpluses due to the state as the representative of a society that has contributed to the accumulation of those surpluses” (FEC 2019, p. 220). This understanding of fiscal ‘levies’ has been largely lost, as the very term ‘levy’ makes clear by suggesting that one gives something up without getting anything in return. According to a widespread misunderstanding, taxes allow the state to shape or control social conditions. In fact, since the Middle Ages, taxes have been a regular payment made to the state, which used the money to support people in need, among other things (Sachße and Tennstedt 1980). This does not mean that the state cannot use taxes to shape social conditions if it chooses to do so. For example, taxes were used in many countries after World War II to correct economic inequalities (Atkinson 2016; Piketty 2014). By contrast, the neo-liberal counterrevolution since the 1980s has systematically curtailed policy-making power over government tax revenues (Prasad 2006). As a result, since then wealth inequality in Germany has again increased significantly (Schröder et al. 2020). To the extent that the upper income brackets have increasingly been able to evade state tax levies in recent decades, the public sector today lacks the financial resources to maintain, let alone expand, public infrastructures. This is reflected in – amongst other things  – a structural underfunding of the transport infrastructure, which has been demonstrated by several infrastructure commissions since the end of the 1990s.5 Public transport in particular suffers from a chronic shortage of services, which is reflected in a growing workload among employees (Verdi 2020). Public mobility that is oriented toward the needs of the people (employees as well as users) is therefore dependent on corresponding tax revenues. Fourth, the far-reaching social reforms bound up with a new infrastructure policy also require new social actors to support and actively shape this change. For a variety of reasons, the established state-controlled public service administrations can no longer cope with this far-reaching task on their own. On the one hand, the neo-liberal austerity regime has led to the downsizing of public sector capacity to a minimum in recent decades (Nachtwey 2016). As a result, municipal administra The so-called Pällmann Commission started in 1999, followed in 2011 by the Daehre Commission, which was followed up in 2013 by the Bodewig Commission. According to this, the state has a shortfall of around EUR 7 billion annually, which would be needed to maintain the existing infrastructure and meet the backlog demand in the coming years. 5

1 Introduction

11

tions can hardly cope with the tasks citizens require of them. For example, Berlin districts with 400,000 inhabitants did not have a transport planner until recently; the Berlin districts were largely incapable of acting on transport policy and are only just beginning to rebuild the necessary competencies to regain policy-making power. Quite apart from the lack of competencies, the established state institutions no longer meet the functional requirements of today’s democratic societies. This means that improving and expanding capabilities in the public sector must go hand in hand with support for hybrid alliances between the state/public administration and civil society, and include the development of corresponding intermediary institutions. Initiatives to this end are coming from civil society and are active at all political levels (Redecker 2020). In Berlin, the activists of the “Volksentscheid Fahrrad” (bicycle referendum) put an end to the state government’s decades-long lethargy with regard to transport policy and contributed to the development of a mobility law in close cooperation with representatives from the government and administration, which places Berlin’s transport policy on a new legal basis. The civil society movement has now institutionalized itself as the association Changing Cities and is an important actor in transport policy with a nationwide presence (see the contributions by Kirchner and von Schneidemesser in this volume). Another example of hybrid alliances that are increasingly gaining influence, especially in the field of transport policy, is the initiative launched by young people Fridays for Future, which has allied itself in particular with large sections of academia to initiate reforms in transport policy that the established state institutions are not in a position to undertake. Accordingly, a political initiative for public mobility would also have to be supported by a broad civil society alliance able to force through the necessary institutional reforms. The four steps of political reform outlined by the British colleagues from the Foundational Economy Collective form the programmatic basis of a public mobility committed to the common good. Accordingly, in our conceptualization of public mobility we have systematically taken into account the FEC’s steps of social reform and spelled them out in concrete terms in the individual chapters.

4 Property and Freedom While the question of the future of democracy is very present in current debates on socio-political reform due to authoritarian developments, the question of property is hardly ever raised (Zelik 2020a). In contrast, recent developments in particular show quite tangibly how much the success of the politically desired fundamental

12

O. Schwedes

social reforms depends on addressing ownership of the means of production. In this regard, the energy transition is particularly revealing, preceded by decades of protests by the anti-nuclear movement and highly politically contested until the very end (Radkau and Hahn 2013). On the one hand, the example of the energy transition underscores the growing importance of civil society initiatives for impulses in social reform, outlined above (Holstenkamp and Radtke 2017). After all, in 2010, the then German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, had reversed the decision of the previous government [a coalition between the Social Democrats and the Greens] for an energy turnaround and the phase-out of nuclear energy. It was not until the nuclear disaster at Fukushima a few months later that she reversed her just-announced ‘exit from the nuclear phase-out’ and renewed the political decision for the energy transition. This was not done on the basis of personal or party-­ political insight, but was the result of an unerring instinct for power politics on the part of the Chancellor, who had recognized that continued political support for nuclear energy could no longer be rationalised. The point had been reached where the majority of the population, after more than 40 years of disputes over energy policy, had acquired the ability to think in a technically informed way about alternative concepts of energy supply – the citizens were more competent than the ruling political elite at the time. In addition to demonstrating the growing importance of civil society in socio-­ political decision-making processes, the example of the energy transition also shows that far-reaching processes of social reform must be politically pushed through against the vigorous resistance of powerful economic interests. For decades, the oligopoly of the four large energy companies had successfully resisted reforms in energy policy because they saw nuclear energy – their most lucrative business segment – as endangered. In fact, the political decision to phase out nuclear power meant that the energy companies were summarily (‘coldly’) dispossessed.6 In this context, the Federal government referred to Article 14 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that the limits of private property are determined by law (para. 1), its use should at the same time serve the public good (para. 2), and accordingly dispossession is permissible for the public good (para. 3). In this respect, the dispossession of the energy companies is an expression of a social learning process, beginning in the 1950s with the euphoric hailing of nuclear power as a technology of the future and ending with the realization that, in the long term, nuclear energy does more harm than good to the general welfare.

 In contrast, a non-summary (‘hot’) dispossession would have meant that the energy industry would have been nationalized or socialized under Article 15 of the Basic Law. 6

1 Introduction

13

The energy transition is inconceivable without a transport transition (Schwedes 2019). So far, however, there has been no political decision in favor of a transport transition; rather, the automobile corporations still dominate German transport policy. Just as the energy companies blocked the energy transition in its time, today the automotive industry is successfully resisting a change from a fossil-based to a post-fossil mobility system. Once again, the owners of the means of production decide when, what and how to produce. In the given political circumstances, their legitimate interest is to maximize their own profits, to which the common good is subordinated. The political goal of the transport transition therefore presupposes that, as in the case of the energy transition, the question of ownership is raised. If society realises that private cars with internal combustion engines are more harmful than beneficial to the common good from the point of view of sustainable transport development, the transport policy decision against both the production of private passenger cars and internal combustion vehicles is necessary. To this end, the German automobile corporations would have to be dispossessed by law so that they can transform themselves from automobile manufacturers into mobility service providers. Accordingly, a public mobility that also includes an automotive component will have to be measured not by whether it organizes ever more traffic, ever faster, over ever greater distances, following the current paradigm of transport development, as conventional public transport has practiced to date, but rather “whether it satisfies basic human needs, facilitates equal social relationships, and puts a halt to the destruction of the webs of life” (Zelik 2020b, p. 100).

5 Public Science To the extent that government and administration in democratic societies rely on the active participation of civil society actors, scientists and researchers must also fundamentally rethink their public roles (Burawoy 2015; Aulenbacher et al. 2017). This is because, in recent decades, publicly funded science has, on the one hand, retreated to a supposedly neutral standpoint away from debates on societal values and, on the other hand, increasingly oriented its activities to economic criteria (Neun 2018; Münch 2011, 2018). The extent to which traditionally business-­ oriented research in transport in particular has closed itself off to society and the latter’s specific needs is shown by the collegial response to my announcement that in the future we would collaborate in teaching with actors from civil society, such as environmental associations and activists: That would make us vulnerable! This

14

O. Schwedes

stance is still maintained today by those colleagues in the institutes of research on transportation who cooperate with industry on all levels as a matter of course. According to its own self-image, research in the field of transport follows the ideal of a ‘pure science’ that pretends to stay away from political turmoil. It thus accords with the previously-mentioned undemocratic German understanding of the State and an ‘independent’ administration that does not make common cause with the citizens, preferring to orient its actions entirely on the basis of laws and regulations. At the same time, the state/public administration, business and academia enter into a cartel-like, mutually legitimizing relationship that seals itself off hermetically and is barely receptive to signals from society (Weingart 2001). It is this alienation of academic research from society while at the same time ingratiating itself with politics and business that has contributed to its loss of importance, which is lamented on all sides. Therefore, the politicization of transport policy must go hand in hand with the democratization of democratic societies (Schäfer 2015, p. 187 ff.), because ‘publication’ in the protected space of academic self-­sufficiency no longer meets the requirements of democratic societies. Expertise in research on transport is only one body of knowledge among others and is no longer sufficient, on its own, to legitimize processes of social transformation. Instead, more so than in the past, it must expose itself to people’s everyday understanding and address their concrete problems (Grossardt and Bailey 2018).

6 The Crisis as an Opportunity The political model of democracy is in crisis worldwide. In this regard, we subscribe to the thesis of Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holms (2019) that the triumphant victory over the communist alternative system has led to liberal hubris and obscured the latter’s own political shortcomings. Accordingly, liberalism’s self-­ righteousness has contributed to its own crisis, to the extent that its own need for reform has been overlooked. While we witnessed a massive socialization of private debt in 2008 as a result of the financial and economic crisis (Tooze 2018), the challenge of democratic societies today is to develop new forms of socialization of private wealth. This opens up new scope for action for the State and the public administration, which they must explore in close collaboration with civil society. In what follows, we describe public mobility as one such field of action, in terms of transport policy, in which the State and the public administration are increasingly taking a back seat in favor of society.

1 Introduction

15

References Acemoglu, Daron und James A.  Robinson. 2019. Gleichgewicht der Macht. Der ewige Kampf zwischen Staat und Gesellschaft. Frankfurt M.: Fischer. Ackermann, Till, Harald Albuschkat, Daniel Brand, Marcus Gersinske, Heike Höhnscheid, Steffen Kerth, Folkert Kiepe, Reiner Metz, Martin Schäfer, Meinhard Zistel. 2019. Verkehr. In Öffentliche Wirtschaft. Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis, Hrsg. Holger Mühlenkamp, Frank Schulz-Nieswandt, Markus Krajewski, Ludwig Theuvsen, 429–525. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Ambrosius, Gerold. 2019. Geschichte der öffentlichen Wirtschaft. In Öffentliche Wirtschaft. Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis, Hrsg. Holger Mühlenkamp, Frank Schulz-­ Nieswandt, Markus Krajewski, Ludwig Theuvsen, 25–54. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Atkinson, Anthony B. 2016. Ungleichheit: Was wir dagegen tun können. Stuttgart: Klett-­ Cotta. Aulenbacher, Brigitte, Michael Burawoy, Klaus Dörre, Johanna Sittel, Hrsg. 2017. Öffentliche Soziologie. Wissenschaft im Dialog mit der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt M.: Campus. Brand, Ulrich. 2019. In der Wachstumsfalle. Die Gewerkschaften und der Klimawandel. Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 7: 79–88. BMU  – Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit & UBA  – Umweltbundesamt, Hrsg. 2019. Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2018: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage. Berlin. Burawoy, Michael. 2015. Public Sociology: Öffentliche Soziologie gegen Marktfundamentalismus und globale Ungleichheit. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Juventa. Dickermann, Dietrich und Hans Gerhard Strohe. 2019. Messung und Umfang der öffentlichen Wirtschaft. In Öffentliche Wirtschaft. Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis, Hrsg. Holger Mühlenkamp, Frank Schulz-Nieswandt, Markus Krajewski, Ludwig Theuvsen, 55–191. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Dustmann, Christian, Bernd Fitzenberger, Markus Zimmermann. 2018. Housing Expenditures and Income Inequality. Cenre for Research and Analysis of Migration. Discussion Paper Series 16. London. Eckardt, Andrea, Björn Harmening, Klaus Mertens, Tom Adler. 2020. Konversion der Autoindustrie. Was denken die Beschäftigten. Luxemburg 1: 66–71. Engartner, Tim. 2017. Privatisierung und Liberalisierung – Strategien zur Selbstentmachtung des öffentlichen Sektors. In Kritik des Neoliberalismus, 3. Aufl., Hrsg. Christoph Butterwegge, Bettina Lösch, Ralf Ptak. Wiesbaden, S. 79–121. FEC – Foundational Economy Collective. 2019. Die Ökonomie des Alltagslebens. Für eine neue Infrastrukturpolitik. Frankfurt M.: Suhrkamp. Filarski, Ruud. 2011. Shaping Transport Policy. Two centuries of struggle between the public and private sector – A comparative perspective. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. Grossardt, Ted und Keiron Bailey. 2018. Transportation Planning and Public Participation. Theory, Process, and Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Günther, Frieder. 2004. Denken vom Staat her. Die bundesdeutsche Staatsrechtslehre zwischen Dezision und Integration 1949–1970. München: Oldenburg. Haucap, Justus und Oliver Budzinski, Hrsg. 2020. Recht und Ökonomie. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Heinig, Hans M. 2008. Der Sozialstaat im Dienst der Freiheit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

16

O. Schwedes

Helbig, Marcel und Stefanie Jähnen. 2018. Wie brüchig ist die soziale Architektur unserer Städte? Trends und Analysen der Segregation in 74 deutschen Städten. Discussion Paper P 2018–001. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Berlin: WZB. Herrmann, Ulrike. 2019. Deutschland ein Wirtschaftsmärchen. Warum es kein Wunder ist, dass wir reich geworden sind. Frankfurt M: Westend. Hipp, Claudia und Andreas Knorr. 2020. Ökonomische und rechtliche Implikationen von Streiks im Verkehrswesen. In Recht und Ökonomie, Hrsg. Justus Haucap und Oliver Budzinski, 273–303. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Hodenberg, Christina von. 2018. Das andere Achtundsechzig. München. Holstenkamp, Lars und Jörg Radtke. Hrsg. 2017. Handbuch Energiewende und Partizipation. Wiesbaden: Springer. Illou, Eva. 2020. Versprechen einer Welt danach, Süddeutsche Zeitung 70 (03). Infras. 2019. Externe Kosten des Verkehrs in Deutschland. Straßen-, Schienen-, Luft- und Binnenschiffverkehr 2017. Zürich: INFRAS. Krastev, Ivan und Stephen Holms. 2019. Das Licht, das erlosch. Eine Abrechnung. Berlin: Ullstein. Manow, Philip. 2018. Die politische Ökonomie des Populismus. Frankfurt M. Suhrkamp. Mazzucato, Mariana. 2014. Das Kapital des Staates. Eine andere Geschichte von Innovation und Wachstum. München: Kunstmann. Möllers, Christoph. 2008. Der vermisste Leviathan. Staatstheorie in der Bundesrepublik. Frankfurt M.: Suhrkamp. Mühlenkamp, Holger/Frank Schulz-Nieswandt/Markus Krajewski/Ludwig Theuvsen, Hrsg. 2019. Öffentliche Wirtschaft. Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Münch, Richard. 2018. Der bildungsindustrielle Komplex. Schule und Unterricht im Wettbewerbsstaat. Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa. Münch, Richard. 2011. Akademischer Kapitalismus. Über die politische Ökonomie der Hochschulreform. Frankfurt M. Suhrkamp. Münkler, Herfried und Harald Bluhm Hrsg. 2001. Gemeinwohl und Gemeinsinn, 4 Bd. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Nachtwey, Oliver. 2016. Die Abstiegsgesellschaft. Über das Aufbegehren in der regressiven Moderne. Frankfurt M. Suhrkamp. Neu, Claudia Hrsg. 2009. Daseinsvorsorge. Eine gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Annäherung. Wiesbaden: Springer. Neun, Oliver. 2018. Zum Verschwinden der deutschen öffentlichen Soziologie. Die Geschichte des Verhältnisses von Soziologie und Öffentlichkeit nach 1945 bis zur Gegenwart. BadenBaden: Nomos. Nobis, Claudia, Tobias Kuhnimhof 2018. Mobilität in Deutschland  – MiD.  Tabellarische Grundauswertung. Studie von infas, DLR, IVT und infas 360 im Auftrag des Bundesministers für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. Bonn, Berlin. Paterson, Matthew. 2007. Automobile Politics. Ecology and Cultural Political Economy. Cambridge. Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Das Kapital im 21. Jahrhundert. München: Beck. Prasad, Monica. 2006. The Politics of Free Markets. The Rise of Neoliberal Economic Politics in Britain, France, Germany, & the United States. Chicago: Chicago Press.

1 Introduction

17

Preuß, Ulrich K. 1969. Zum staatsrechtlichen Begriff des Öffentlichen. Untersucht am Beispiel des verfassungsrechtlichen Status kultureller Organisationen. Stuttgart: Klett-­ Cotta. Radkau, Joachim und Lothar Hahn. 2013. Aufstieg und Fall der deutschen Atomwirtschaft. München: Oekom. von Redecker, Eva. 2020. Revolution für das Leben. Philosophie der neuen Protestformen. Frankfurt M.: Fischer. van Rahden, Till. 2019. Demokratie. Eine gefährdete Lebensform. Frankfurt/New York: Campus. Rajan, Sudhir C. 2006. Automobility and the liberal disposition. Sociological Review, Heft 1: 113–129. Rammler, Stephan. 2001. Mobilität und Moderne. Berlin: edition sigma. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2017. Die Gegen-Demokratie. Politik im Zeitalter des Misstrauens. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition. Schäfer, Armin. 2015. Der Verlust politischer Gleichheit. Warum die sinkende Wahlbeteiligung der Demokratie schadet. Frankfurt und New York: Campus. Sachs, Wolfgang. 1990. Die Liebe zum Automobil. Ein Rückblick in die Geschichte unserer Wünsche. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Sachße, Christoph und Florian Tennstedt. 1980. Geschichte der Armenfürsorge in Deutschland. Bd. 1: Vom Spätmittelalter bis zum 1. Weltkrieg. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schildt, Axel und Wolfgang Schmidt. 2019. “Wir wollen mehr Demokratie wagen”. Antriebskräfte, Realität und Mythos eines Versprechens. Bonn: Dietz. Schroeder, Wolfgang, Hrsg. 2014. Handbuch Gewerkschaften in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schröder, Carsten, Charlotte Bartels, Konstantin Göbler, Markus M.  Grabka, Johannes König. 2020. MillionärInnen unter dem Mikroskop: Datenlücke bei sehr hohen Vermögen geschlossen – Konzentration höher als bisher ausgewiesen. DIW Wochenbericht 29: 511– 521. Schwedes, Oliver. 2019. Grundlagen der Verkehrspolitik und die Verkehrswende. In Energiewende. Eine sozialwissenschaftliche Einführung, Hrsg. Jörg Radtke und Weert Canzler, 193–220. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Seibel, Wolfgang. 2017. Verwaltung verstehen. Eine theoriegeschichtliche Einführung. Frankfurt M.: Suhrkamp. Strötzel, Maximilian. 2020. Die ökonomische Bedeutung der Automobilindustrie und aktuelle Entwicklungen. In Baustelle Elektromobilität. Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf die Transformation der (Auto-)Mobilität, Hrsg. Achim Brunnengräber und Tobias Haas, 392–408. Bielefeld: Transskript. Slobodian, Quin. 2019. Globalisten. Das Ende der Imperien und die Geburt des Neoliberalismus. Frankfurt M.: Suhrkamp. Tooze, Adam. 2018. How a Decade of Finacial Crisis Changed the World. Random House: Penguin. UBA  – Umweltbundesamt. 2016. Umweltschädliche Subventionen in Deutschland 2016. Dessau-Roßlau: UBA. Verdi  – Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft (2020): Schlechte Entwicklung im ÖPNV. https://tvn2020.de/category/hintergrund/ (24.08.2020).

18

O. Schwedes

Vogel, Berthold. 2007. Die Staatsbedürftigkeit der Gesellschaft. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition. Walks, Alan. 2015. Driving cities. Automobility, neoliberalism, and urban transformation. In The Urban Political Economy and Ecology of Automobility. Hrsg. Alan Walks, 3–20. London & New York: Routledge. WBGU  – Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen. 2011. Welt im Wandel. Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation. Berlin: WBGU. Weingart, Peter. 2001. Die Stunde der Wahrheit. Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist: Velbrück. Zelik, Raul. 2020a. Wir Untoten des Kapitals. Über politische Monster und einen grünen Sozialismus. Frankfurt M.: Suhrkamp. Zelik, Raul. 2020b. Sozialismus, aber anders. Durch Selbstermächtigung zur befreiten Gesellschaft. Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 8: 91–100. ZLM  – Zentrum Liberale Moderne. 2019. Abschlussbericht der Kommission ‘Sicherheit im Wandel’  – Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt in Zeiten stürmischer Veränderungen. Berlin: ZLM. Zweck, Axel, Dirk Holtmannspötter, Matthias Braun, Michael Hirt, Simone Kimpeler, Philine Warnke. 2015. Gesellschaftliche Veränderungen 2030. Ergebnisband 1 zur Suchphase von BMBF-Foresight Zyklus II. Düsseldorf: VDI.

Part I Basics of Public Mobility

2

Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor Oliver Schwedes and Roman Ringwald

1 Introduction Since the beginning of the Federal Republic of Germany, public transport has been understood as a public service of general interest (Daseinsvorsorge). A reform of public transport in line with our understanding of public mobility (see the contribution of Wolking in this volume) therefore also requires the concept of Daseinsvorsorge to be developed further, to be brought into step with the times. To this end, it is necessary to develop an understanding of the social function of this concept in the field of public administration. Conceptually a relatively recent construction, the socio-political idea of public services has a long tradition, dating back to the seventeenth century. The emergence of the principle of public services

O. Schwedes (*) Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] R. Ringwald bbh Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_2

21

22

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

is closely linked to the formation of the modern welfare state (Ritter 1991),1 and is part of a development in the course of which the idea of a successful life was always combined with the desire for freedom from material hardship. Even the early forms of public transport developed in an interrelationship with the precursors of public services. In order to appreciate the challenge of reforming public services in conformity with the desired public mobility, it is helpful to first recall their historical development. Following on from that, the current discussion on the topic will be outlined. In the conclusion, the historical perspective on the two inter-connected social aspects will be maintained in order to make clear the political character of the connection, on the basis of various alternative courses of action.

2 The Historical Development of Public Services and Transport 2.1 The Early Bourgeois Phase With the trade relations established since the fifteenth century, new connections developed between the Hanseatic cities of Europe. Goods and information were exchanged by sea, but also increasingly by road. In view of this economic dynamic, the feudal political structure of the medieval order finally came to an end in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Grimm 1993). While modern nation states were formed throughout Europe, this development did not occur until much later in Germany, with its myriad of regional states. But even these states freed their subjects from corporative, feudal and ecclesiastical despotism. This was less an expression of early state welfare than a consequence of economic expansion, which broke the corset of the estates-based state. As a result of the increasing division of labor in the economy and the associated rural exodus, “there were increases in the number of people who, as day laborers, home workers or mercenaries, for example, were no longer integrated into the traditional natural economic family, communal and manorial associations or guilds and could not make provisions for times of need and unemployment” (Ritter 1991, p. 33). The extent of the widening social  While Ritter uses the term “social state” (Sozialstaat), we use the international term “welfare state” (Wohlfahrtsstaat). In this conceptual distinction, the “social state” stands for selective social policy measures in the tradition of nineteenth century welfare, while the much more comprehensive “welfare state” stands for the precautionary principle established only after World War II (also Lessenich 2000, p. 40 f.). 1

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

23

crisis was soon perceived as a danger to society that could no longer be dealt with by the Church alone. An awareness arose that society had a responsibility for people who had fallen into precarious living conditions as a result of social ills. This responsibility was to be assumed by the state, inclined toward the common good. In Germany, such an idea was first formulated in the Prussian Civil Code of 1794 (Koselleck 1987). It assigned the care of schools, universities, theaters, the “organization and direction of popular amusement” (Gröttrup 1973, p. 26 f.) as well as the organization of transport to the Polizey. The latter had the all-encompassing task of controlling the private lives of citizens and watching over their ‘happiness’ and physical and moral well-being. This absolutist presumption was always castigated as “oppressive despotism” by liberal minds such as Wilhelm von Humboldt (Ritter 1991, p. 43). For in actual implementation, the provision of state services took a back seat to repressive methods of establishing social peace. Prussia was a police state. The Prussian state’s interventions in transportation in the early nineteenth century must be seen primarily in the context of military questions. After Prussia’s defeat by Napoleon in 1806, the reforms introduced by the Prussian civil servant Freiherr vom Stein also initiated increased state involvement in infrastructure, not so much to support economic activity as to be better prepared for further armed conflicts. What was important here were not so much direct interventions but administrative innovations. Thus, the 1808 City Ordinance strengthened the urban bourgeoisie and prepared it for taking on political responsibility. In the period of the Restoration after 1815, this took the form of a division of tasks between the state and the municipalities. As a night watchman state, the state now concentrated on internal and external security, while the municipalities, along with cooperatives, business and Church organizations, took care of the welfare of their citizens.2 This developed in accordance with the welfare principle, that is, the provision of aid, ex post, for people in need. Especially after the failed bourgeois revolution of 1848, the tasks of the municipalities were defined as a services administration for the bourgeois public. In view of the industrial revolution that was now also taking shape in Germany, the first systematic deliberations began on how hardship and social unrest could be prevented. Public services (even if they were not yet called that) developed as “urban technica” (Reulecke 1985, p. 56), that is, as a procedure to address housing shortages, poor sanitation and health care. The ‘specter of communism’ emerging

 The self-image of German cities as a corrective antipole to the state stems from this period. This is embodied in the institutions of local self-government. 2

24

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

at that time was to be exorcised by the ‘spirit of public welfare’, in the form of institutions subject to public law. The Town Charter (Städterechtsordnung) of 1848/1849 and the Municipal Code (Gemeindeordnung) of 1850 introduced municipal economic law, making public utilities (and municipal revenues) legally possible, entrusted to municipal enterprises. Thus, gas, water and sewage utilities were established from 1850, although the former were initially privately owned. Municipal economic interests – the upper middle classes also wanted to profit from the ‘new markets’ – as well as accidents, which occurred from time to time in the gas supply, and mass infections caused by contaminated water led to the municipalization of gas and water works in almost all major German cities by 1880. Adam Smith’s classical political economy had already pointed out that “circulation in capitals” was necessary for a “healthy economy” (Smith 1996, p.  20 f.). Since the seventeenth century, this need had been met in European capitals by the operation of hackney carriages – horse-drawn carriages that could be rented for a set amount of money and time. In the late 1820s, initially in major French cities,3 in 1829 also in London and finally in Berlin in 1839, horse-drawn omnibuses with fixed routes and timetables appeared. In Germany, the operation was legally regulated by police ordinances.4 Although the number of lines and vehicles increased rapidly and massively, this means of transportation was reserved for privileged citizens until the middle of the century because of the high costs involved. Thus, the developments in this period can be summed up as follows: The political upheavals, especially the transition from absolutism to a constitutional state, ensured that the municipalities were given the legislative responsibility to provide certain services for the benefit of the citizens. Industrialization increased the pressure on municipalities to establish an efficient administration for these services. Until the end of the century, however, transportation barely figured in these efforts.

2.2 The Establishment of a System in Times of Crisis It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that the idea of the state as a service provider was taken up, with the introduction of social insurance. In the course of industrialization, social class conflicts had intensified to such an extent that the state decided to use social security as a means “to provide public services and avert  Nantes 1826, Bordeaux 1827, Paris 1828.  See the “Polizeireglement für den Betrieb des so-called Omnibus Personen Fuhrwerkes” of February 1, 1851, Berlin. 3 4

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

25

danger” (Wehler 1995, p. 1255), to contain socio-political changes. At the same time, however, a social policy was established that, in contrast to the welfare of the poor practiced until then, was endowed with a new quality: “The new social policy provided for empire-wide, permanent, more effective protection against risks of a decline in income, underpinned by legal rights” (Schmidt 2005, p. 24). At the municipal level, so-called ‘munizipalsozialistische’ ideas rapidly gained influence. For all their theoretical differences, the protagonists of this school of thought, which was derived from the classics of finance,5 shared the assumption that an economic system organized purely under private law was incapable of solving the economic and social problems created by industrialization, and that these functional deficiencies were to be remedied by the intervention of local authorities. In contrast to social democracy, which at that time sought to overcome class antagonisms, the municipal socialists, as social conservatives, did not question the existing system, but saw public services administered by local authorities as a complement to it. At the same time, they had an interest in the prosperity of a community emancipated from the (authoritarian) state. In view of the socio-economic structural changes in the wake of the burgeoning industrial society, a theoretical justification of the necessity for municipal self-­ governments emerged. In contrast to the extremely controversial debate at the Gotha Party Congress in 1875 on the nationalization of Prussian railroads, the Social Democrats were also almost unanimously positive about the municipalization of monopoly enterprises, believing that the non-profit character of the enterprises would give them democratic control and enable them to pursue a targeted regional economic policy. By 1900, the municipalities had become the largest employer in the German Empire after the Imperial Postal Service (Reichspost) and the Prussian State Railways. At the same time as the municipal economic reforms, urban planning activities were increasingly initiated in large cities from the middle of the century, following an international trend. The names Haussmann in Paris and Hobrecht in Berlin are both synonymous with urban planning founded on hygienic criteria, with new development in blocks and wide, light streets arranged in a grid pattern. From the beginning, urban planning also included aspects connected with traffic planning. For the large industrial enterprises then emerging, the conveyance of many workers to and from their workplace had to be ensured and for the development of an urban, middle-class public, inner-city traffic routes were a necessary part of the environment.  The best-known names are Adolph Wagner, Albert Schäffle, Gustav von Schmoller and Emil Sax. 5

26

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

In this period of radical urban transformation and expansion, rails were laid in the new arterial streets, with horse-drawn tramways used to speed up communication with the suburbs and to open up new areas for settlement. On June 25, 1865, Germany’s first horse-drawn streetcar ran between the Brandenburg Gate and Charlottenburg. But the technical innovations of the time soon made completely different forms of transportation possible. As early as 1863, the world’s first underground railroad began operating in London, and in Berlin, tracks for steam-­powered urban trains were built in the 1870s. The Ringbahn (circle line) there was completed in 1877, leading to a “first wave of industrial relocations” (Bendikat 1997, p. 168). “This so-called first migration to the periphery left the relatively close relationship of residential area and industrial site still in place in many cases, nevertheless employees increasingly had to use public transportation” (ibid.). In the course of this development, private local transport gradually became publicly-­ owned. In a tough dispute with the private owners, the public authorities began to enforce fare prices around the turn of the century that were also affordable for workers.6 “It is precisely the observation that, historically, public transport systems emerged for an initially narrow target group of affluent users, as line routing, traffic density and capacity illustrate, that ultimately makes fares appear as important indicators of change in the target groups of public transport” (Fisch 1997, p.  57). However, although local authorities used public subsidies to ensure socially acceptable fares, political influence on the organization of local passenger transport initially remained low. The electrification of streetcars carried out by companies such as Siemens and AEG – the world’s first electric streetcar ran in the Berlin suburb of Lichterfelde in 1881 – continued to drive industrial and transport development. With the involvement of these expanding large-scale enterprises, the new mass transit technologies proved to be major driving forces. On the one hand, they provided the transportation infrastructure for the expansion of industrial production generally; on the other hand, this meant immense growth for the companies involved. As a result of this dynamic, public transportation developed into mass transit, with municipalities beginning to support or even mandate monopolization efforts in mass transit at the

 In Berlin, the 10 pfennig standard fare was introduced for all streetcars in 1910. Not least because of this, the streetcar doubled its passenger numbers every decade and became the most important means of transport for the expanding commuter traffic (Wolf 1992, p. 33, 39). However, introducing this fare was only possible thanks to massive political pressure (and after 3 years of negotiations between operators and the city administration). The tramway companies favored adhering to higher fares out of profit interests (Bendikat 1997, p. 171). 6

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

27

end of the nineteenth century.7 The intention was for the individual, independent lines, some of which ran past each other, to merge into a system that met the requirements of the expanding large cities. Initially, depending on the mode of transport, these were (mostly private) monopoly companies. Around 1900, for example, there was the monopoly Allgemeine Berliner Omnibus AG (General Berlin Omnibus) in Berlin, but there were also many different tramway operators, including by far the largest, the Große Berliner Straßenbahngesellschaft (Great Berlin Tramway Company) and, from 1902, the Gesellschaft für elektrische Hoch- und Untergrundbahnen (Company for Electric Elevated and Underground Railways) in Berlin, founded by Siemens and Deutsche Bank. Across the country, changes in urban development and the need for land expropriation for underground rail, commuter surface rail and streetcar construction necessitated cooperation between private investors and planning authorities even in the initial phase. As urban populations continued to grow, a doctrine of increased municipal investment and provision of services began to take hold in administrations in the years around 1900. Compared to water, gas and electricity supply, the municipalization of urban transport came relatively late – mostly after the turn of the century – and slowly. On the one hand, many private companies were unwilling to give up the profitable business; on the other hand, their investment and expansion policies, which were guided by the logic of profitability, did not meet the expectations of local governments, which wanted to press ahead with the infrastructural integration of urban peripheries and the linking of the various lines. The provision of local transport by public-law institutions was only partially completed before the war. However, the municipal socialist ideas that encouraged this project became more and more prevalent in the administrations. The contrast between public-welfare-oriented administrative activity and private-sector profit-­ seeking became increasingly clear with the introduction of investment-intensive, electrified mass transportation (Wysocki 1995). Nevertheless, an interplay of state regulation and private-sector initiative that was beneficial for public transport is characteristic of this period.

 In Berlin, the Berliner Omnibus-Gesellschaft, newly founded in 1865, took over the concessions of all previous (horse-drawn) omnibus operators, by police decree. In 1898, the city of Berlin promoted the merger of three tramway companies to form the Große Berliner Straßenbahngesellschaft (GBS) by generously subsidizing new buildings, electrification and the extension of the concession (Bendikat 1997, p. 70). 7

28

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

2.3 Public Economy and (Im)mobilization in Wartime “The mobilization of society” (Lederer 1979, p.  120) in World War I expedited state activity in the economy. The concepts of a ‘common economy’ under wartime primacy were also implemented at the municipal level, where production was monopolized by the state, which granted concessions to private contractors. This also included socio-political concessions to the workers.8 Meanwhile, the German Patriotic Auxiliary Service Law (Vaterländisches Hilfsdienstgesetz), with its compulsory obligation to remain in any employment that was war-related, led to the ‘immobilization’ of workers. This was also evident in public transportation, which was restricted by shortages. Iron, steel, coal and gasoline were used primarily for immediate war production. Even Walter Rathenau’s prominent position in the corporate war economy, representing as a board member of AEG a company that earned handsomely from mass transit technology, could not prevent the collapse of the mass transit market. Urban buses were completely requisitioned for military purposes immediately after the start of the war. Steam-powered commuter railway services were greatly reduced, and streetcars operated on a limited basis. Those still working were operated to the point of maximum wear and tear. Thus, the corporate war economy eventually led to the era of municipalization. For after the war, many mass transit companies were simply bankrupt, and making up for the wear-­ and-­tear operations required heavy investment. The transport operators were run down and now had to be put back on their feet with state funds. In most cases, the municipalities took over the companies, thus privatizing the profits and nationalizing the losses (Wolf 1992, p. 48).

2.4 State Intervention as a Sign of the Times in the Weimar Republic The general expansion of state intervention in the economy of the Weimar period was marked by the failure of the 1918/19 revolution, a nonetheless strengthened reformist social democracy and the failure of the market. State intervention in the economy was no longer determined by rapid demographic developments, as had been the case at the end of the nineteenth century, but by hardship and poverty as a result of war and the world economic crisis. The suppression of the revolution  For this reason, this period is also referred to as “the decisive phase in the transformation of the old public order administration, which never existed in its pure form, into the services and benefits administration of the modern welfare state” (Kocka 1999, p. 121). 8

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

29

meant that a fundamentally changed economic order was no longer an option, the Social Democratic Party, as the strongest political force of the Weimar Republic, turned its attention to the ‘democratization of the economy’. A variety of political goals were pursued through the expansion of public enterprises, the establishment of cooperatives and union-owned companies. In particular, the economically weak municipalities were to be supported by subsidies from the enterprises they had founded – the Stadtwerke (municipal utilities) in their frequently mixed form as energy, water and transport providers – and thus provided with financial relief. For the most part, this was successful.9 The Social Democratic Party pursued certain public service objectives with the public enterprises (Ambrosius 1984, p. 60): 1 . The principle of catering for needs instead of the profit principle, 2. a planned economy instead of economic relations based on competition, 3. instrumentalization of economic policy instead of an exclusively business management perspective, 4. democratic, socio-economic management instead of hierarchical organizational structures, and 5. progressive, company-based wages and working conditions instead of private capitalist exploitation. As was the case in the time of the German Empire, these ‘socialist’ ideas were consonant with those of a social wing of the liberals.10 Due to economic, regional planning and social policy premises in connection with the fight against the economic crisis, social democrats and ‘intervention-­ oriented liberals’ agreed to increase the investment activity of the public sector of all three regional authorities. In this context, more and more tasks were assigned to public enterprises. In the Weimar period, between 55 and 65 percent of all gross fixed capital formation was invested in the areas of public housing, welfare, social insurance, utilities, and transportation (Ambrosius 1984, p. 95). The development of public transport into a means of mass transportation was accompanied by a drastic change in ownership: “Whereas before World War I mu “More than 90% of municipal operating revenues came from the utilities of water, gas, and electricity, with the electricity plants alone generating between 30 and 50%” (Ambrosius 1984, p. 92). 10  Outstanding names to be mentioned here are Heinrich Niebuhr (1928), Kurt Wiedenfeld (1927), Manuel Saitzew (1930), Walter Gerber (1928) and Jürgen Brandt (1929) can be mentioned. 9

30

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

nicipal and private tramway companies shared the market equally, after the war a systematic municipalization began, accompanied by a process of substantial concentration. The various tramway companies that existed in the individual large cities were merged into one company. At the same time, an extensive expansion of the rail networks took place” (ibid., p. 75). In Berlin, not only was the “most modern local transport system in Europe” (ibid., p. 76) built, but new organizational structures were also established. As early as 1921, the city had taken over the majority of the streetcars, and, in 1926, the majority of shares in the bus company ABOAG and the elevated and underground railways. In 1929, the various modes of transportation – streetcar, underground rail, commuter surface rail and bus – were merged into one integrated local transportation company in the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG). This was unique in all of Europe at that time. The legal form was initially that of a stock corporation, in which the city of Berlin held 100 percent of the shares. In the 1930s, it was transformed into an institution under public law. BVG, as the third largest company in the Republic at the time, is the most prominent example of the municipalization of public transport in Germany in the 1920s. In places where numerous companies were not already municipally-owned since the German Empire, as in Westphalia, the transport companies were now massively transferred to public ownership. “In 1927, 223 tramway companies operated a total route length of 6285 kilometers. Of these companies, 120 were purely municipal institutions, 67 had a mixed-economy character with predominantly municipal influence, while 36 companies were still privately owned” (ibid.). It is true that, in individual cases, the municipalities’ desire to share in the profits may have been at the root of the municipalization of the transport companies, but this was primarily a reaction to failure of the market (Wolf 1992, p.  55 ff.; Niederich 1997, p. 95 ff.). With municipalization, the municipalities pursued public interests in the sense of what, a short time later, were called public services. This explicitly also meant a national economic responsibility, since the Fordist economy presupposed a functioning mass transport system as a ‘natural’ given. The public takeover of urban transport was embedded in an internationally observable expansion of state economic activity (Wagner 1995). It was, on the one hand, a plausible consequence of a shift of power from capital to the organized labor movement and, on the other hand, consistent with municipalities assuming responsibility for the welfare of their citizens. At the end of the Weimar Republic, the precarious social conditions once again came to a dramatic head with the Great Depression. In light of this failure of the market, the idea of the state adopting a strong position in guaranteeing basic existential needs became almost common sense throughout Europe (Wagner 1995).

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

31

The ‘Third Emergency Decree of the President of the Reich for Securing the Economy and Finances and for Combating Political Riots’ of 1931 exemplifies this development, with the title at the same time pointing to the essential aspect, namely state intervention for the purpose of social pacification. “Overall, these laws reflect the spirit of the times, which was characterized by the transition from liberal to interventionist thinking, from a federal to a centralized understanding of politics, by declining confidence in competitively structured markets and growing faith in the efficiency of planned organizations” (Ambrosius 1995, p. 33). In the ‘spirit of this time’, the constitutional law expert Ernst Forsthoff developed the principle of public services of general interest (Daseinsvorsorge) in the 1930s, a concept that aimed to provide for essential needs and to pacify society.

3 The Conceptual Formulation of the Connection Between Public Services and Public Transport Thus, Daseinsvorsorge and the discussion surrounding it existed prior to the coining of the term. The term Daseinsvorsorge was introduced to the German-speaking world in 1938 by Ernst Forsthoff in a pamphlet entitled “The Public Administration as Service Provider” (“Die Verwaltung als Leistungsträger”). The author’s aim was to formulate his credo for a ‘neutral’ administration and to strengthen it as a covert power within the state. The constitutional lawyer justified the need for public services with the urbanization that had taken place in the course of industrialization. This had given rise to a social neediness in which necessities and other goods were no longer directly accessible to the individual. As an example, he mentions “the supply of water, gas and electricity” (Forsthoff 1938, p. 7). Since city dwellers did not have their own farm as a “self-governed space” (Forsthoff 1938, p. 4), they would have to organize the supply of these goods in the space to which they had access, namely public space. Urban dwellers could neither dig their own well, nor generate their own electricity, let alone produce gas. These goods would necessarily be obtained from public authorities (Scheuner 1978, p. 547 f.). The social neediness thus defined is independent of the economic situation and should therefore not be equated with social welfare in cases of poverty, illness or other hardship; on the contrary, welfare and public services must be seen as distinctly separate. Referring to Max Weber, Forsthoff points out that modern man has to acquire these goods by bureaucratically mediated means. The concept of participation is therefore at the center of the conception; today the social sciences speak of ‘access’ (Ronellenfitsch 2003, p. 68). Forsthoff also draws on other prominent sources for

32

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

his conceptualization. Thus, individual passages sometimes refer verbatim to Friedrich Dessauer’s “Philosophy of Technology” (1928), others to Karl Jasper’s “Man in the Modern Age” (“Die Geistige Situation der Zeit”) (1931), which refers to the “necessities of life” (“Daseinsfürsorge”) (ibid., p. 31 f.). Forsthoff thus takes up the contemporary existential philosophical discourse and transfers a concept formulated there to the theory and practice of state administration (Meinel 2011). In order to make his subject matter more concrete, Forsthoff refers not only to the postal service, telephony and telegraphy, hygienic security, provision for old age, invalidity, illness and unemployment, but in particular to the “provision of means of transport of every kind” (Forsthoff 1938, p. 7; Rüfner 2006, p. 1052). Forsthoff thus definitely describes transportation as a component of public services. An expression of this relation is the ‘Law on the Carriage of Passengers by Land’ (PBefG) of December 4, 1934, in which, according to Forsthoff, the tasks of the individual modes of transport are determined by their importance for the overall transport system and the economy. In this way, subsuming transport under the heading of public services is presented as a jurisprudential commentary on the PBefG. However, the connection between public services and transport results from the mobility that has become possible, but also necessary, in the process of urbanization, if it cannot be provided individually or if it affects the public interest. The conditions under which this connection continues to exist even in the age of mass auto-mobility for individuals also mark the political discussion about public services today.

4 Outdated Concept or Enduring Significance of Public Services? For the question of the meaning the concept of Daseinsvorsorge still has today – especially in legal terms – it is decisive to consider how closely the concept was linked to Forsthoff’s authoritarian understanding of the state and whether it can still be meaningfully applied at all within the framework of the liberal-democratic Constitution of the Federal Republic (Meinel 2011). It should be noted that Forsthoff continued to use the concept of Daseinsvorsorge in his seminal textbook on administrative law, but failed to establish a comprehensive new dogmatics of administrative law based on the concept (Forsthoff 1950; Meinel 2011, p. 145). He himself did not implement the idea he put forward in his paper Die Verwaltung als Leistungsträger (Public Administration as a Service Provider), namely to detach the entire administrative law from its classical focus on individual legal instruments, in favor of a functional understanding of the ac-

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

33

tivities of the state administration. Subsequently, the objection has often been raised that the concept of public services may still be important, but rather in the political or sociological sphere, and that the concept no longer has a legal status (Ronellenfitsch 2003, p. 72 f.). On the other hand, however, it should be noted that the term has continued to be used in a large number of judicial decisions and, for example, is regularly used as a matter of course by the European Commission in opinions on public services under Article 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (ibid., p.  81 f.).11 Moreover, there are also quite a few publications in the ­jurisprudential literature that attach ongoing importance to the concept of public services (ibid., p. 69). An appropriate assessment of the legal status of the concept of public services must be based on the fact that Forsthoff used this concept to take up and legally rework a changed administrative reality (Ringwald 2008), in the context of the increasing industrialization and the high population concentration in small areas in large cities. This involves in particular aspects of municipal infrastructure that are absolutely necessary to enable people to live together, but which individuals do not have at their disposal (regardless of their social neediness). This issue remains relevant today, and the associated responsibility of the public administration as guarantor is (largely) undisputed in almost all areas of municipal infrastructure today. For decades, counties and municipalities have selected the providers of electricity, gas or heating and have been responsible for sewage disposal and water supply. Nor do they limit themselves to a one-time selection, but also make decisions – within the framework of legal guidelines – concerning the way in which services are provided. This is particularly clear in the case of local public transport. In many cases, it is the efficiency of public transportation, which is significantly higher than that of motorized individual transport (MIV), that makes it possible to achieve adequate individual mobility in the limited areas generally available to traffic. Relying solely on MIV would not be possible in – at least almost all – German metropolitan areas and would lead to a breakdown in traffic conditions. This applies quite independently of the fact that the  – currently much discussed  – demand for a transport turnaround, which in particular addresses a shift from private motor vehicles to environmentally sustainable modes of transport, is also intended to improve the quality of life in cities and protect the health of the population.

 This is a requirement under state aid law that plays a central role in the field of local public transport in particular. 11

34

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

Nevertheless, it has to be conceded without reservation  – with regard to Forsthoff – that the derivation of Daseinsvorsorge as a legal concept was closely linked to his authoritarian understanding of the state (Günther 2011, p.  367). Forsthoff views the state as an authoritarian political entity that defines and legitimizes itself as the highest legal and ethical authority by preventing civil war. In this respect, Forsthoff closely follows the teachings of Carl Schmitt and the latter’s understanding of the political as a distinction between friend and foe (Forsthoff 1933; Günther 2011, p. 367; Wehler 2014, p. 147). It is scarcely conceivable to be further removed from a liberal-democratic, constitutionally-based conception of the state (Ringwald 2008, p. 45). In the contest between different opinions, which is so essential for the German Constitution, Forsthoff is unable to recognize anything more than the ever-virulent danger of civil war-like conditions. On the basis of these considerations, he sets out the legitimation for an administration endowed with legally unbound discretionary power. The commitment to norms is replaced by the commitment to a specific objective. Administrative actions are subject to limits only in the case of exclusively subjective and extraneous considerations. Forsthoff’s doctrine of administrative law concerning public services thus serves to make the administration as independent as possible from the normative sphere of the parliament and to make it the instrument of state leadership, independent of the parliament. This stands in stark contrast to modern standards of normative integration of administrative planning (see the contribution by Schwedes in this volume). Any criticism of the concept of public services referring to this aspect of its development is therefore absolutely justified (Knauff 2004, p. 43 f.). In the light of inalienable human dignity as a fundamental norm of the German Constitution, it is not possible to declare every decision by the state to be concretely binding or metaphysically just. The state is not a pre-legal entity; rather, state power emanates from the people and is bound by laws and statutes: Article 20, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Constitution. The central theme of the distinction between the state and society required by the Constitution is the safeguarding of individual freedom. The freedom of the individual is secured in two ways in the Constitution: by the possibility of participating in the democratic decision-making process and by the limitation of state power vis-à-vis individual freedom. With regard to the concept of public services, it is crucial to note that the question of individual freedom does not arise exclusively in the sense of freedom from state intervention. In some cases, individuals do not have the prerequisites for a free and autonomous way of life. Creating and maintaining these conditions is then a task of the state.

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

35

With regard to the positioning of public services, the political-economic neutrality of the Constitution is also important. The concept should not obscure the fact that fundamental rights, which are based on the free development of the personality, are by no means alien to a liberal economic constitution. An economic constitution based on the fundamental rights of property, freedom of occupation, freedom of movement and general freedom of action will – at least in essential aspects – have to be fundamentally competitive in orientation. Of course, even a competition-­ based economy requires regulation and adjustment. The social support facilitated by state interventions and norms corresponds to the concern that social reality must not fall significantly short of the state’s social goals. Indeed, the Federal Republic is not only a democratic but also a social constitutional state, as stipulated in Article 20 (1) of the Constitution. This is not a non-binding, programmatic-political statement, but a legal principle: the national objective provision, which obligates all organs of the state to pursue this social goal. Therefore, a welfare-state interpretation of fundamental rights can also lead to social obligations on the part of the state. If the tasks of the welfare state (also) include guaranteeing real freedom in equal measure, support from the welfare state may be required if the right to freedom would otherwise be an essentially empty promise. In individual cases, this can even culminate in a subjective claim to social participation or entitlement to benefits. If the results of private initiatives in areas defined as essential are not sufficient to ensure adequate support for citizens, it is therefore one of the state’s tasks to ensure or offer public services itself. However, a distinction must be made between • benefits to citizens who are threatened with exclusion from society due to their financial situation (social benefits) and • benefits to all citizens, which are provided irrespective of their personal ability to pay (public services) (Rüfner 2006, p. 1055). What social benefits and public services have in common is the goal of preventing hardship and making goods and services as equally accessible as possible to as many people as possible. While the focus of social policy is to compensate for differences in access to goods and services that are anchored in the social relationship, Daseinsvorsorge aims to provide reliable care and support for the public generally. The welfare state’s mandate of equality does not therefore render the concept of public services superfluous. The task of providing for the common good in the form of public services exists independently of the principle of the welfare state. It follows from the state’s obligation to the common good and welfare and is a reaction to the increasing depen-

36

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

dence of the population on external services. Population concentrations, the division of labor, and the risks associated with complex production and distribution processes result in considerable risks and challenges for the individual. Unlike social services, public services are therefore fundamentally directed at everyone (Knauff 2004, p. 48). These services are characterized by the fact that they are offered for the benefit of the individual citizen (Rüfner 1996, p. 1044). They are not concerned with promoting the economy, nor primarily with profit-making. They are addressed to ‘normal citizens’, who are able to provide for themselves, but who are unable to meet certain important needs, either on their own or in the market (ibid.). Therefore, public services are usually not provided free of charge, but with the aim of covering costs. Of central importance is not who provides public services, but that these services are provided on the basis of principles oriented to the common good (Knauff 2004, p. 48). It would therefore be a misunderstanding of public services if they were understood as the state assuming a comprehensive responsibility for tasks generally. State intervention is only necessary if the desired orientation to the common good cannot be achieved without such intervention. Moreover, state intervention can also be limited to establishing expedient conditions for private initiative (Rüfner 2006, p. 1051). Only when this is not sufficient is it necessary for the state to take on the relevant tasks. In light of this, it is also understandable why the state increasingly sees itself less as a service provider that takes on public tasks itself. Instead, the state is increasingly modelling itself on the guarantor state, which enables private individuals to provide services that are of essential importance for the common good, within the framework of official regulatory guidelines. However, this model is not a departure from a (modern) understanding of public services, because the goals associated with it are not relativized. On the contrary, it breaks with the inaccurate (and not infrequently polemical) juxtaposition of the private market economy and the provision of public services. The concrete tasks of providing public services are then defined and carried out on the basis of the respective current needs. However, this does not result in arbitrariness: the concern to provide inexpensive, secure, comprehensive services that take account of the public good in the tariff structure is a sufficient reason for the public sector to possess its own facilities, as long as equivalent services cannot be expected from the private sector (Rüfner 2006, p. 1062). The provision of public services by municipal facilities or by guaranteeing their provision by private individuals is a legal obligation of the state, which is oriented toward the welfare of the citizens, as laid down in the Constitution, Art. 28 Para. 2 (Rüfner 2006, p. 1064).

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

37

In this respect, it should be noted that the duties of the state are broader than legal duties, and among the legitimate duties of the state, it may choose and set priorities. They are based not least of all on the prevailing social models and political majorities (ibid.).

5 On the Career of Public Services and Public Transport in the Federal Republic of Germany When Forsthoff developed his concept of public services in the 1930s, he also had public transport in mind. At that time, generally-accessible mobility was not yet conceivable in any other form. After the Second World War, the conditions for this changed fundamentally. With the spread of the private car as a mass phenomenon, the transport that was socially necessary was provided privately to an ever greater extent. The state-guaranteed offer of collective transportation increasingly gave way to individual mobility using one’s own car. In this way, citizens reclaimed the transport sector and emancipated themselves from the dictates of the state. For this reason, the emergence of private transport is often emphatically described as an act of individual liberation and democratization (Burkart 1994). From this point on, the two transport systems, which were fundamentally different in their mode of operation, developed largely independently of each other. While motorized individual transport underwent a dynamic of rapid growth, public transport continued to remain in the sphere of the state administration, which was legitimized by the legal-ethical construction of public services and (unfortunately) practically interpreted in a mostly paternalistic fashion. The extent to which the nature of public services depends on the historically specific sociopolitical circumstances is already illustrated by the first crisis-driven debate about public transport in the early 1970s. At the time, public transport had already lost a great deal of its attractiveness compared to private transport, which was reflected in – among other things – ever higher subsidies from the public sector. This sparked a lively discussion about the future of public transport, with astonishing parallels to our own current disputes. This applies in particular to the topic of “Rationalization in Transport as a Component of Public Services,” which was the title of a conference of the Working Group for Rationalization in the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (AGR 1975). While rationalization in the broadest sense stood for rational economic action, this understanding was contrasted with the principle of public services (Daseinsvorsorge) as political rationality oriented to the common good. Once again, it became clear that the concept of economic rationality is only inadequately countered by a nebulous understanding of Daseinsvorsorge.

38

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

In the discussion, similar positions to those adopted today were opposed to each other. On the one hand, the warning was voiced “that there are also limits to the so-called Daseinsvorsorge of the state” (Wilkenloh 1975, p.  16). On the other hand, the conviction prevailed that, especially in transport, “the fundamental investments must essentially be made by the state and the municipalities” (Nehrling 1975, p.  17). It remains to be noted that the exact formulation of what Daseinsvorsorge had to provide was not primarily derived from the concept in legal terms, even at that time. Instead, Daseinsvorsorge was a concept that had to be politically determined: “In my opinion, like the concept of quality of life, its scope needs to be determined by government, or more precisely, by the ideas of the various political groups in society, in a constitutional state like ours these are ultimately decisions to be made by the legislative bodies, and not least of all by the organs of self-government” (Stukenberg 1975, p.  18). Even back then, political design was subordinated to economic rationality, because it depended “ultimately on feasibility, [and] feasibility here referred quite brutally to money [emphasis added]” (Eichhoff 1975, p. 23). In the semantics of justification, this position anticipates the current state of the discussion. Another example is the discussion based on the European Union regulation of July 26, 2000, on the liberalization of passenger transport (COM 2000) and the austerity laws enacted by various governments at the time. They fundamentally questioned whether public transport was a component of public services, and even referring to them often acts as a red rag in the conflict between advocates of the welfare state and representatives of a free market economy. Critics criticize the antiquated nature of the legal concept and call for its complete abolition, arguing that it should be replaced by state responsibility for infrastructure and provision of services based on private-sector criteria. The outdated concept, they argue, is to blame for the inefficiency and hostile attitude to service as such in the range of services provided under its umbrella (Hermes 1998; Miegel 2003). The opposing position is primarily held by trade unions and social organizations, but also by the Association of German Cities and Towns (Deutscher Städtetag 2000, 2018). They argue that, within the framework of public services, vital goods and services must also be provided to the socially disadvantaged, the elderly, children, the sick – in short, to all those who are particularly dependent on solidarity in society, even if this cannot be justified economically. The term “common good” is often used here.12 In addition, these actors see the rights of municipalities to self-­ government as under threat (Deutscher Städtetag 2003). The discussion about pub For a definition problem related to the concept of public services, see Schuppert and Neidhardt (2002). 12

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

39

lic transport is thus embedded in a general dispute about public services, ultimately raising the question of how little state and how much market our society needs. The specially explosive nature of the topic is fueled by this context.13 The dispute over public transport can therefore be read in historical retrospect as a specific case study of a major power struggle between politics and private enterprise (Acemoglu and Robinson 2013). The consequences of removing services from the range of public services are then occasionally clearly stated: “The competitive process may mean that such services are not provided to certain regions or population groups to the extent, structure, or at the prices that policymakers deem appropriate” (Schatz 2000, p. 10). The question, then, is whether government bodies guarantee public services or whether the market decides, in case of doubt even abolishing them. “The latter scenario would touch on the integrating power of the Leviathan and it thus directly targets the state’s basis of legitimacy” (Becker 2002, p. 199). With regard to public transport, this is presented as follows: “Mobility is an object of private lifestyle or economic activity and as such cannot be eligible for public subsidy” (FES 2001, p. 9). As a result, this means that transport services are only available where they generate a profit for their operators. It is doubtful whether this is still ‘public’ transport, which is characterized by the fact that, as a matter of principle, it is accessible to everyone. By contrast, the concept of public mobility we are advocating here upholds the fundamental objective of public transport to ensure social participation even in the face of changing social conditions by providing an appropriate range of transport services. To this end, the concept of public services must be politically redefined.

6 Conclusion and Outlook Local public transport is a classic case of the task of the state and its administration described by the term “public services”. It plays an essential role in social coexistence, but due to its complexity it cannot be provided independently by the individual. Rather, it requires an organizational structure, such as can be sensibly created on the basis of local transportation plans in particular. Individuals may not have an inherent entitlement to the expansion of local public transport; nevertheless, it is one of the tasks of the state administration to organize transport and mo-

 For this reason, contributions that treat the topic in a differentiated manner are still rare (e.g., Krautscheid 2009; Neu 2009). 13

40

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

bility reasonably, on the basis of the respective standard of living and, in this case, in particular transport needs and their impact on social coexistence in conurbations. If the concept of public services in transport were taken to its logical conclusion, it would be an obvious step to provide citizens with household access to mobility (Schwedes and Daubitz 2012). While other services and goods of the traditional public services (electricity, gas, water, telephone and Internet) reach into almost every household, the public transport network consists of a loose mesh. One always has to get from home to the nearest bus, streetcar, commuter train or underground rail station. These distances can be very long. Once there, one can sometimes wait a long while for ‘transportation’. If one has to change trains, this is often the case for the connection as well. This problem has to be understood as a public challenge, otherwise people will continue to solve it in a private way, as they have done up to now, namely by owning a car, with all the negative consequences that this entails for the general public. Whereas in the past it was a matter of ensuring general accessibility to mobility, today the task is to sustainably manage the consequences of traffic development in highly mobile societies. This raises the question of whether the principle of public services is still relevant. To do justice to it, certain politically defined services or service packages can be put out to tender for exclusive provision by individual companies and, if necessary, subsidized. Thus, politicians are required to define – for example in local transport plans – what the general interest in public transport is and how the objectives are to be implemented. In defining the general interest in transport design and public space, ‘politics’ should not only be understood as legislators and the administrations that implement political decisions, but also as ‘civil society’. The interested and affected public would have to be more involved, e.g. in citizen and district forums, in the preparation of regionally differentiated local transport plans and the definition of ‘sufficient transport service’, beyond the token assemblies often organized by lobbyist interest groups (Strasser 2004; Lorenz et al. 2020). This proposal suggests that similar, − but certainly open to improvement – procedures for development and land use plans should be used as a model. The administration (states, counties, and municipalities) would then be responsible for coordinating the various regional and neighborhood transportation plans. The success of the much-vaunted Swiss transportation model is due not least to its grassroots legitimacy (Breitenmoser et al. 2001; Sager et al. 1999). The fundamental question of whether public transport needs public services, or whether we need them, must come as a surprise in view of an increasingly differentiated, interwoven and, for each individual, increasingly risk-laden society (Beck 1986). Under such risky conditions, the need for supra-individual, solidarity-based

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

41

provision for the majority of the population certainly doesn’t decline. Admittedly, the idea of provision has been discredited as a paternalistic principle through its – sometimes deliberate  – conflation with welfare. In recent times it has been expressed in a more ‘modern’ way, using another term, namely sustainability. While the concept of Daseinsvorsorge was limited to the forward-looking maintenance of economic and social reproduction, the principle of sustainability also aspires to take into account the ecological aspects of future social development. It is therefore not surprising that the two debates are strikingly similar. In both cases, the focus is, on the one hand, on the socio-political weighting of short-term, business decisions, and, on the other hand, reflecting on their long-term social and ecological effects. Seen in this light, it does not seem unlikely that the concept of public services will in future be absorbed into the discourse of sustainability. In contrast, the call for a fundamental withdrawal of the state from its responsibility for public welfare-oriented provision is reminiscent of nineteenth century thinking. At that time, the night watchman state saw its task primarily in maintaining internal and external security. Its function was rooted in the defensive posture of protecting the formal rights of freedom of each individual member of society, without, however, becoming active itself. Providing (for) the material basis of existence was left to the fate of each individual. The demand, frequently voiced again in recent years, that individuals, their property and the family must be strengthened, seems like a renaissance of the political philosophy of that time (Nida-­ Rümelin 2011). The emphasis on individual rights is also repeatedly used in the discourse on the future of public transport – for instance, with the statement that, in view of increasing individualization, it is outmoded (Projektgruppe Mobilität 2001). Such argumentation is often unconvincing because it praises personal freedom without enquiring into its preconditions. Particularly where state action makes personal freedom possible for all citizens in the first place, the opposition between the individual and the state hardly does justice to describing the complexity of the task. Moreover, the argument that mobility is a purely individual matter and not of general interest can quickly be dismissed in light of the mass individualization to be observed in car traffic.14 While the term “mobility” refers to an individually experienced (physical) movement, in traffic the individual is confronted with the mobility of other individuals, of the general public, as a technically mediated system. This dialectical interweaving of individual mobility and the general transport system becomes clear in the pair of terms auto-mobility and public transport. Although every motorist is also traveling in public, she imagines herself simply as 14

 The cipher “MIV” could be better translated in this way.

42

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

mobile. Whoever travels ‘publicly’, on the other hand, is in a means of transport. This indicates the apparent opposition of mobile self-determination versus externally determined functionality. Those who believe that mobility can be solved individually ignore the structural context of transport.15 The fact that traffic is always publicly regulated  – although up to now often serving the interests of motorized individual transport – should be a shared understanding of all road users and members of society generally. That this is often not the case is mainly due to the fact that the principle of public services has so far remained limited to public transport. The fact that, parallel to public transport – with its social obligation to ensure adequate transport services for all members of society – private motorized transport, which is largely unencumbered by social and ecological obligations, became established, gave rise to two fundamentally ­different transport systems, which legitimize themselves socially in very different ways. While public transport is defined by its orientation toward the common good within the framework of public services, private transport emphasizes the idea of individual freedom. The resulting conflicts of goals between the general public and the individual are the subject of political negotiation in democratic legal systems. Since the emergence of motorized individual transport as a competitor to public transport, the need for a stronger linkage between the two transport systems has been repeatedly pointed out. Early on, there were endeavors for the public takeover of private individual transport as well as the individualization of public collective transport. Even today, the generally accepted guiding principle of Integrated Transport Planning aims at linking the two independent transport systems with the goal of sustainably orienting transport development towards the common good (see the contribution by Schwedes in this volume). In this context, it should be pointed out that the increasingly relevant discussion about a transport turnaround is aimed at more than the expansion of public transport – and thus also expands the understanding of public transport in the direction of public mobility. It is true that public transport is the backbone of the environmentally friendly modes of transport and of any comprehensive transport turnaround. At the same time, however, a considerable restructuring of public infrastructure is required, in order to redress a distribution of public spaces that has so far been strongly oriented toward the private car – in particular, a restructuring that focuses more strongly on the interests of pedestrians and cyclists. If nothing else, the Berlin Mobility Act takes up this aspect and contains planning principles for a  “The individual and his self-car” would be the title of the psychological study of automobile advertising that can be connected here. 15

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

43

different distribution of public spaces in favor of all participants in transport (see the contribution by Kirchner in this volume). Following on from this, the role of new mobility offers in the context of a public mobility beyond motorized individual transport and classic public transport will be of interest (see the contribution of Wolking in this volume). In particular, the various forms of sharing on offer are still in the development stage as far as their impact on public space and individual mobility is concerned. However, if the limited public space and the increase in population in many metropolitan areas are taken into account, there is a strong case for promoting mobility through shared transport, in order to be able to bring about a redistribution of public space. On the basis of the concept of public services and the associated tasks of the state administration, it stands to reason that the development of such systems should also be subject to principles of public law and thus be designed in a way conducive to a nationwide, inexpensive and non-discriminatory transport offering (see the contribution by Daubitz in this volume). When combined in a sensible way, public transport and shared mobility services can complement each other highly effectively and to the benefit of all, to form a public mobility system. However, if bus and train services and shared transport services were to be provided solely on the basis of market principles, there would be little room for an orderly development of transport policy oriented toward the common good.

References Acemoglu, Aron und J. A. Robinson. 2013. Warum Nationen scheitern. Die Ursprünge von Macht, Wohlstand und Armut. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. AGR  – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rationalisierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Hrsg. 1975. Rationalisierung im Verkehr als Teil der Daseinsvorsorge. Dortmund: Sander. Ambrosius, Gerold. 1984. Der Staat als Unternehmer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ambrosius, Gerold. 1995. Kommunalwirtschaft im Spannungsfeld von Autonomisierung/ Privatisierung und Bindung/Regulierung (vom Ende des 19. Jh.s bis zu den 1930er Jahren). In Kommunalisierung im Spannungsfeld von Regulierung und Deregulierung im 19. und 20. Jh., Hrsg. J. Wysocki, 141–163. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Beck, Ulrich. 1986. Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Becker, Hartmuth. 2002. Die Kategorie öffentlicher Güter als Grundlage von Staatstheorie und Staatswissenschaft. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Bendikat, Elfi. 1997. Öffentliche Verkehrssysteme im Spannungsfeld kommunaler Intervention im Metropolenvergleich: Berlin und Paris 1890–1914. In Mobilität für alle. Geschichte des öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs in der Stadt zwischen technischem

44

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

Fortschritt und sozialer Pflicht, Hrsg. H.-L. Dienel und B. Schmucki, 149–182. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Brandt, Jürgen. 1929. Die wirtschaftliche Betätigung der öffentlichen Hand. Jena: Fischer. Breitenmoser, Bernadette, R. Furrer, L. Raymann. 2001. Wege zur Nachhaltigkeit im Verkehr. Konsens auf lokaler Ebene ist Voraussetzung. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 3. Oktober 2001. Burkart, Günter. 1994. Individuelle Mobilität und soziale Integration. Zur Soziologie des Automobilismus. In Soziale Welt, Heft 2: 216–241. Dessauer, Friedrich. 1928. Philosophie der Technik. Das Problem der Realisierung. 2. Aufl. Bonn: Friedrich Cohen. Deutscher, Städtetag. 2000. Europäische Wettbewerbspolitik gefährdet kommunale Daseinsvorsorge. Pressedienst des Deutschen Städtetags vom 3. Mai 2000. Berlin. Deutscher, Städtetag. 2003. Die Stadt der Zukunft. Beschluss der 32. ordentlichen Hauptversammlung des Deutschen Städtetages am 15. Mai 2003  in Mannheim. Dokumentiert in Schader-Stiftung (2003): 310–316. Darmstadt. Deutscher, Städtetag, Hrsg. 2018. Nachhaltige städtische Mobilität für alle  – Agenda für eine Verkehrswende aus kommunaler Sicht. Berlin und Köln: Deutscher Städtetag. http:// www.staedtetag.de/imperia/md/content/dst/veroeffentlichungen/mat/positionspapier-­ nachhaltige-­staedtische-­mobilitaet.pdf (31.12.2020). Eichhoff, Eugen. 1975. Redebeitrag auf der Podiums- und Generaldiskussion der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rationalisierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. In Rationalisierung im Verkehr als Teil der Daseinsvorsorge, Hrsg. AGR  – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rationalisierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 15–36. Dortmund: Sander. Fisch, Stefan. 1997. Nahverkehr aus der Sicht der Stadtplanungsgeschichte. Anmerkungen eines Verwaltungs- und Planungshistorikers. In Mobilität für alle. Geschichte des öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs in der Stadt zwischen technischem Fortschritt und sozialer Pflicht, Hrsg. H.-L. Dienel und B. Schmucki, 51–61. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Forsthoff, Ernst. 1933. Der totale Staat. Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt. Forsthoff, Ernst. 1938. Die Verwaltung als Leistungsträger. Stuttgart/Berlin: Kohlhammer. Forsthoff, Ernst. 1950. Lehrbuch des Verwaltungsrechts. Band 1. Allgemeiner Teil. München/ Berlin: C. H. Beck. Gerber, Walter. 1928. Die öffentliche Unternehmung in privatrechtlicher Form. Zürich: Girsberger. Grimm, Dieter. 1993. Der Staat in der kontinentaleuropäischen Tradition. In Abschied vom Staat – Rückkehr zum Staat?, Hrsg. R. Voigt, 27–50. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Gröttrup, Hendrik. 1973. Die kommunale Leistungsverwaltung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Günther, Frieder. 2011. Ordnen, gestalten, bewahren. Radikales Ordnungsdenken von deutschen Rechtsintellektuellen der Rechtswissenschaft 1920 bis 1960. In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Heft 3, 353–384. Hermes, Georg. 1998. Staatliche Infrastrukturverantwortung. Rechtliche Grundstrukturen netzgebundener Transport- und Übertragungssysteme zwischen Daseinsvorsorge und Wettbewerbsregulierung am Beispiel der leitungsgebundenen Energieversorgung in Europa. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Jaspers, Karl. 1931 [1971]. Die geistige Situation der Zeit. 7. Abdruck der im Sommer 1932 bearbeiteten 5. Aufl. Berlin: de Gruyter.

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

45

Krautscheid, Andreas, Hrsg. 2009. Die Daseinsvorsorge im Spannungsfeld von europäischem Wettbewerb und Gemeinwohl. Eine sektorspezifische Betrachtung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Knauff, Matthias. 2004. Der Gewährleistungsstaat: Reform der Daseinsvorsorge. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Kocka, Jürgen. 1999. Klassengesellschaft im Krieg. Deutsche Sozialgeschichte 1914–1918. 2. durchgesehene und ergänzte Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KOM  – Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. 2000. Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Maßnahmen der Mitgliederstaaten im Zusammenhang mit Anforderungen des öffentlichen Dienstes und der Vergabe öffentlicher Dienstleistungsaufträge für den Personenverkehr auf der Schiene, Straße und Binnenschifffahrtswegen. Kom (2000) 7 vom 26. Juli 2000. Brüssel. Koselleck, Reinhard. 1987. Preußen zwischen Reform und Revolution. Allgemeines Landrecht, Verwaltung und soziale Bewegung von 1791 bis 1848. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Lederer, Emil. 1979. Kapitalismus, Klassenstruktur und Probleme der Demokratie in Deutschland 1910–1940. Buchreihe Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft, Bd. 39, Hrsg. J. Kocka. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lessenich, Stephan. 2000. Soziologische Erklärungsansätze zu Entstehung und Funktion des Sozialstaats. In Soziologie des Sozialstaates. Gesellschaftliche Grundlagen, h­ istorische Zusammenhänge und aktuelle Entwicklungstendenzen, Hrsg. J.  Allmendinger und W. Ludwig-Mayerhofer, 39–78. Weinheim: Beltz. Lorenz, Astrid, C. P. Hoffmann und U. Hitschfeld, Hrsg. 2020. Partizipation für alle und alles? Fallstricke, Grenzen und Möglichkeiten. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. FES – Managerkreis der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. 2001. Verkehrspolitik im Strukturwandel: die neuen Chancen der Mobilität. Thesenpapier. Federführung: F.  Mietsch. Berlin. https://library.fes.de/fulltext/managerkreis/01130.htm. Accessed: 01.07.2020. Meinel, Florian. 2011. Der Jurist in der industriellen Gesellschaft. Ernst Forsthoff und seine Zeit. Berlin: de Gruyter. Miegel, Meinhard. 2003. Die Zukunft der öffentlichen Daseinsvorsorge. Hrsg. Schader-­ Stiftung (2003): 28–37. Darmstadt. Niebuhr, Heinrich. 1928. Öffentliche Unternehmungen und Privatwirtschaft. Leipzig: G. A. Gloeckner. Nehrling, Heinz. 1975. Redebeitrag auf der Podiums- und Generaldiskussion der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rationalisierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. In Rationalisierung im Verkehr als Teil der Daseinsvorsorge, Hrsg. AGR  – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rationalisierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 15–36. Dortmund: Sander. Neu, Claudia, Hrsg. 2009. Daseinsvorsorge. Eine gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Annäherung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Nida-Rümelin, Julian. 2011. Die Optimierungsfalle. Philosophie einer humanen Ökonomie. München: Irisiana. Niederich, Nikolaus. 1997. Nahverkehrsbetriebe als Wirtschaftsunternehmen: Die Stuttgarter Straßenbahnen und ihre Eigentümer von 1868 bis 1918. In Mobilität für alle. Geschichte des öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs in der Stadt zwischen technischem Fortschritt und sozialer Pflicht, Hrsg. H.-L. Dienel und B. Schmucki, 83–108. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

46

O. Schwedes and R. Ringwald

Projektgruppe, Mobilität. 2001. Kurswechsel im öffentlichen Verkehr. Mit automobilen Angeboten in den Wettbewerb. Berlin: edition sigma. Reulecke, Jürgen. 1985. Geschichte der Urbanisierung in Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main: suhrkamp. Ringwald, Roman. 2008. Daseinsvorsorge als Rechtsbegriff. Forsthoff, Grundgesetz und Grundversorgung. Frankfurt M.: Peter Lang. Ritter, Gerhard A. 1991. Der Sozialstaat. Entstehung und Entwicklung im internationalen Vergleich. München: de Gruyter Oldenbourg. Ronellenfitsch, Michael. 2003. Daseinsvorsorge als Rechtsbegriff – Aktuelle Entwicklungen im nationalen und Europäischen Recht. In Ernst Forsthoff: Kolloquium aus Anlass des 100. Geburtstags von Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Ernst Forsthoff, Hrsg. W. Blümel. 53–114. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Rüfner, Wolfgang. 1996. Daseinsvorsorge und soziale Sicherheit. In Handbuch des Staatsrechts, Hrsg. J. Isensee, P. Kirchhof, 2. Auflage, Band 3, 1037–1085. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller. Rüfner, Wolfgang. 2006. Daseinsvorsorge und soziale Sicherheit. In Handbuch des Staatsrechts, Hrsg. J. Isensee, P. Kirchhof, 2. Auflage, Band 3, 1049–1107. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller. Sager, Fritz, V.  Kaufmann und D.  Joye. 1999. Die Koordination von Raumplanung und Verkehrspolitik in urbanen Räumen der Schweiz: Determinanten der politischen ­Geographie, der politischen Kultur oder der institutionellen Struktur. In: Swiss Political Science Review, Heft 5: 25–55. Saitzew, Manuel. 1930. Die öffentliche Unternehmung der Gegenwart. Tübingen: Mohr. Schatz, Klaus-Werner. 2000. Die öffentliche Daseinsvorsorge im Spannungsfeld des EU-­ Wettbewerbs. Co-Referat anlässlich des 1. Brüsseler Gesprächs mit dem Thema „Die öffentliche Daseinsvorsorge im Spannungsfeld des EU-Wettbewerbsrechts“ der SPD Brüssel am 20.09.2000. Scheuner, Ulrich. 1978 [1969]. Das Gesetz als Auftrag der Verwaltung. In Staatstheorie und Staatsrecht, Hrsg. J. W. Rüfner, 545–565. Berlin: Kohlhammer. Schuppert, Gunnar F. und F.  Neidhardt, Hrsg. 2002. Gemeinwohl  – Auf der Suche nach Substanz. WZB-Jahrbuch 2002. Berlin: edition sigma. Schmidt, Manfred G. 2005. Der deutsche Sozialstaat. Geschichte und Gegenwart. München: C. H. Beck. Schwedes, Oliver und S.  Daubitz. 2012. Hausanschluss Mobilität. Erfahrungen und Potenziale von Erreichbarkeitsplanung. Hrsg. Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband. Berlin. https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/downloads/Hausanschluss_Mobilitaet_ vzbv_2012.pdf. Accessed: 25.04.2020. Smith, Adam. 1996 [1789]. Der Wohlstand der Nationen. Eine Untersuchung seiner Natur und seiner Ursachen. München: dtv. Strasser, Karsten. 2004. Der Öffentliche Straßenpersonenverkehr im Umbruch. Was passiert auf dem Weg von der kommunalen Eigenproduktion zum Ausschreibungswettbewerb? In Wir können auch anders. Perspektiven von Demokratie und Partizipation, Hrsg. N. Fröhler, S. Hürtgen, C. Schlüter und M. Thiedke, 294–309. Münster.

2  Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor

47

Stukenberg, Helmut. 1975. Redebeitrag auf der Podiums- und Generaldiskussion der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rationalisierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. In Rationalisierung im Verkehr als Teil der Daseinsvorsorge, Hrsg. AGR  – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rationalisierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 15–36. Dortmund: Sander. Wagner, Peter. 1995. Soziologie der Moderne. Freiheit und Disziplin. Frankfurt am Main/ New York: Campus. Wehler, Hans Ulrich. 1995. Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Bd. 3, Von der ‘Deutschen Doppelrevolution’ bis zum Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges. München: C. H. Beck. Wehler, Hans-Ulrich. 2014. Die Deutschen und der Kapitalismus. Essays zur Geschichte. München: Beck. Wiedenfeld, Kurt. 1927. Die Wirtschaft der öffentlichen Hand. In Grundriß der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Band 2, Hrsg. W. Mahlberg, E. Schmalenbach, F. Schmidt und E. Walb, 45–62. Leipzig: Gloeckner. Wilkenloh, Friedhelm. 1975. Redebeitrag auf der Podiums- und Generaldiskussion der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rationalisierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. In Rationalisierung im Verkehr als Teil der Daseinsvorsorge, Hrsg. AGR  – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rationalisierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 15–36. Dortmund: Sander. Wolf, Winfried. 1992. Eisenbahn und Autowahn. Personen- und Gütertransport auf Schiene und Straße. Geschichte, Bilanz, Perspektive. Hamburg: Rasch und Röhring. Wysocki, Josef, Hrsg. 1995. Kommunalisierung im Spannungsfeld von Regulierung und Deregulierung im 19. und 20. Jh. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

3

Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning Oliver Schwedes

1 Introduction In the initial post-war decades, as economic prosperity increased, public transport steadily lost importance in favour of the private car, but was then rediscovered in the 1970s. However, the renewed interest of transport planners in public transport was largely motivated by the need to relieve the rapidly growing car traffic in order to reduce congestion and thus ensure ‘freedom of the road for free citizens’. At the time, the consensus in transport policy was established that public transport should continue to provide a minimum level of mobility for those who cannot afford a car, as part of the provision of public services. Since then, public transport has been legitimised in terms of transport planning and policy with providing transport for those who are trapped in public transport without an alternative – the ‘captives’. Public transport as a ‘poor man’s carriage’. Since then, contrary to all the political lip service, public transport, measured against private car traffic, has had the social significance of a firmly planned and priced-in residual value. Accordingly, all parties involved have agreed on parallel financing at different base levels, with which the disproportion between public and private transport has been fixed in place with every financial budget for decades. If private transport gets something, public transport gets its share – no more, but no less. Between 1994 and 2018, public transport was subsidised to the tune of around €172 billion under the Regionalisation Act. As a result, its contribution to transport O. Schwedes (*) Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_3

49

50

O. Schwedes

increased by 36 percent over the same period, and public transport passenger numbers rose by as much as 56 percent. However, parallel to the subsidisation of public transport, there has been significantly higher subsidisation of private car transport, which has subsequently grown at the same rate, so that as a result of the general growth in traffic volume, the respective shares of total transport volume and the means of transport have not changed. What is more, according to the forecasts of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, this ratio will not change until 2030: Today, two-thirds of passenger transport is accounted for by private car traffic, which will also be the case in the future (see Fig. 3.1). If public transport is to develop further into a form of public mobility whose social significance goes beyond a residual value and makes a significant contribution to sustainable transport development, this requires a corresponding will to Proportionate transport performance of the means of transport according to passenger-kilometres travelled 3% 2% 6% 3% 3%

7%

7% 7% 7%

5%

Motorised individual transport

6%

8%

5%

3% 3%

9% 7% 3%

Air transport

2% 3%

Rail transport Road-based public transport

75% 76%

Cycling

75% 75%

Pedestrians

2030

1994 2020

2010

Fig. 3.1  Proportionate contribution of the means of transport in terms of passenger kilometres travelled. The unit of measurement passenger-kilometre (pkm) is calculated by multiplying the number of persons transported by the distance covered in kilometres. (Source: Own calculations based on Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur (BMVI), Verkehrsverflechtungsprognose 2030, Schussbericht, 11.06.2014, www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/G/ verkehrsverfechtungsprognose-­2030-­schlussbericht-­los-­3.pdf; BMVI, Verkehr in Zahlen 2019/2020, September 2019, www.bmvi.de/ShareDocs/DE/Artikel/G/verkehr-­in-­ zahlen_2020.html; own presentation)

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

51

shape transport policy and planning. Current adaptation planning, which is still limited to managing the status quo, must be replaced by integrated transport planning. Integrated transport planning is characterised in particular by the fact that it is normatively, politically, professional and spatially coordinated and involves the various actors from the various sectors in the planning process, on an equal footing. In the following, it will be shown how such integration must be conceived in all four areas in order to meet this requirement.

2 Normative Integration To begin with, normative integration is the explicit inclusion of political values, which serve to orient the planning. Being oriented by socially negotiated values, integrated transport planning is thus explicitly political planning. In contrast, the clique of conventional transport planners, which traditionally consists of civil engineers and economists, understands planning as a value-free, technical process grounded on and by natural science. Its representatives systematically overlook the implicit normative value decisions underlying their actions. This is evident in the primary goal of making traffic more efficient and maintaining the flow of traffic while emphasizing the great importance of transport for economic development. Accordingly, the current Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan is focused on getting the growing volumes of traffic from A to B as quickly as possible (Heuser and Reh 2016). The efficiency of the transport system is measured by how cost-­ effectively and, as a result, how effectively the goal of organising ever more traffic at ever greater speeds over ever-greater distances is achieved. However, this decades-­old goal of increasing economic efficiency now clashes with the new societal and internationally ratified sustainability goals (United Nations 2019). This shows that the supposedly value-free, scientifically-based planning goal of increasing economic efficiency, which traditional transport planning attempts to achieve through technical innovations (traffic information systems, new drivetrain technologies, autonomous driving, etc.), is based on a normative value decision in favour of the economy and at the expense of social and ecological values. Once this normative decision has been made, transport planners can indeed make the transport system highly efficient in this sense or adapt it to the current requirements. However, the political decision is made beforehand concerning the question whether the goal of increasing economic efficiency is also effective. Economist Peter Drucker (1963) succinctly defined the difference between efficiency and effectiveness as being that the former is about doing things right, while the latter is about striving to do the right things. To illustrate the relevance of the analytical

52

O. Schwedes

distinction, Drucker noted that there was little sense in pursuing goals in a particularly efficient way when it would be better not to pursue them at all. The representatives of traditional transport planning can claim with a clear conscience that for decades they have been carrying out undoubtedly efficient adaptation-­oriented planning, which expands the transport system in line with the constantly growing volumes of traffic and thus maintains the flow of traffic – they are obviously doing things right. But they refuse to answer the political question of whether what they are doing so efficiently is effective – are they doing the right things? It follows from this insight that we should first agree on what the right goals are. Integrated transport planning does this by explicitly justifying its planning goals in normative terms, communicating them transparently and putting them up for public discussion. In detailed terms, this means that all measures that are decided upon and implemented within the framework of normatively integrated planning must be transparently linked to the guiding principle. Thus, it must be comprehensible for both politics and civil society which target criteria are to be achieved by the planning (e.g. climate neutrality 2050), which strategies are to be used for this (e.g. CO2 reduction in the transport sector) and finally which concrete measures are to be implemented for this (e.g. CO2 tax). A normative integration of planning thus creates transparency and social acceptance and makes it possible to fully involve political and civil society actors in the planning process in a participatory manner. The social establishment of public mobility is dependent on politically legitimized integrated transport planning that understands the design of mobility as a public task that cannot be left to the private calculations of each individual. This requires a normative justification of public mobility that credibly conveys that it can achieve the political goal of more sustainable transport development. A further quality criterion of successful normative integration, in addition to the aforementioned goal orientation and transparent process design, is, therefore, an evidence-­ based approach. To the extent that a major transformation of the transport system is taking place on the way to sustainable transport development, the old certainties of car-oriented transport planning are already facing a crisis of legitimacy. Public mobility will only be able to gain social legitimacy if it can be shown that it contributes to sustainable transport development. Integrated transport planning has the task of providing this evidence in a scientifically sound manner. Analogous to evidence-­ based medicine, which gained acceptance in the 1990s, Integrated Transport Planning stands for evidence-based mobility planning.

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

53

3 Political Integration The second level of action in integrated transport planning is political integration. Here, the aim is to systematically and permanently bring the actors from politics, administration and civil society into dialogue with each other and to involve them in the planning and decision-making processes across all political levels. This ambitious approach results from the experience of growing conflicts caused by a lack of communication between the three groups of actors. Integrated transport planning assumes that the transformation of the transport sector from a fossil to a post-­ fossil mobility culture involves challenges that affect all three groups of actors. The lines of conflict run between politics and administration, administration and civil society, and civil society and politics. They indicate interface problems that have been known theoretically for a long time but have not yet been adequately solved in practice (Mayntz and Scharpf 1973). In order for transport policy and planning to remain capable of action in the future, greater political integration between the three groups of actors is necessary, which was not the case in the past. The concrete tasks that arise in this context will be shown below on the basis of the establishment of public mobility and outlined in distinction to the current state of public transport. In the course of the neoliberal development of the last 30 years, political policy in Germany has reduced its claim on shaping public transport or handed it over to public transport companies (Engartner 2008; Planka.nu 2015). This had a direct impact on the relationship between politics and administration, which, working in close coordination, had previously exerted influence on the public transport authorities of the time. Since the 1990s, politicians have increasingly expected both the public transport authorities (which have been transformed into private company-­ like operations) and the administration to adopt a business orientation, the yardstick of which was so-called economic self-efficiency.1 The aim was to bring revenues and expenditures into a more balanced relationship through internal company reforms and in this way to reduce the sometimes very high public subsidies in transport (Butterwegge et al. 2017). In addition to the economic savings potential, policymakers hoped that market dynamics would give rise to innovative impulses that would lead to both administrative reform and reform of public transport companies. In the expectation that the competition for the best solution mediated by the market would initiate corresponding reforms, political policy was limited to  In the case of public transport, this is laid down in Section 8(4) of the Passenger Transport Act (PersonenBeförderungsGesetz, PBefG), without defining what is meant by economic viability. 1

54

O. Schwedes

steadily cutting public funding in administrations and the public transport companies close to the administrations. Administrators and the public transport companies were largely left to their own devices by the politicians – the result is alienation between politicians and the administrators as well as the public transport companies close to the administrations. In this situation, public transport companies were expected to operate economically on the one hand, but also to fulfil socio-political requirements as public companies. Without political support this balancing act could not be maintained in the long run and it tore the transport companies apart. Thus, as a first step, communication between politicians and administrators must be restored, with integrated transport planning granted a central role in designing a sustainable transport development strategy oriented towards the common good, so that the desired public mobility can be put in place. The central task here is to restore trust in administrations discredited as inefficient as a result of decades of austerity. The second line of conflict runs between administrators and civil society. Here, the tension results from two opposing motivations: while administrators see their task as acting as an incorruptible tool of a legitimate government, civil society, on the other hand, questions precisely these administrative procedures, which it often finds inscrutable, and demands a say. At the same time, German administrations are characterised by a historically conditioned opacity that is particularly pronounced by comparison with other European countries (Seibel 2016, p. 173ff.). In conjunction with the growing demand for citizen participation, to which administrations respond with an intensified blockade attitude, a particularly charged, tense relationship has built up between the two in Germany. This messy situation results from a mutual misunderstanding: on the one hand, administrators fail to recognize that they are increasingly dependent on information from civil society in order to live up to their own claim to serve the common good. On the other hand, activists often get so worked up that they overlook how much they themselves depend on a functioning administration if their own objectives are to be durably realised. Against this background, the development of public mobility requires a political integration that brings both sides together. Today, more than ever, public mobility committed to the common good must take into account the manifold demands of the population. In doing so, it is dependent on the support of administrators. The example of public mobility shows that political integration between administration and civil society must facilitate citizen participation, without overburdening the administration. This means that new channels must be created through which civil society can have its say, and new administrative procedures must be developed to enable administrators to process this input.

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

55

Finally, the third line of conflict runs between civil society and politics (Fischer et  al. 2015). While the relationship between administrators and civil society is about establishing a transparent exchange of information, the political integration between civil society and politics is aimed at actively involving citizens in political decision-making processes. The background to this is the growing mistrust among the population, which no longer sees itself as sufficiently represented politically and is developing ever more extensive forms of civic engagement (Rosanvallon 2017). Political integration here pursues the ambitious goal of guaranteeing the human right of social participation for all citizens by ensuring that a comprehensive conception of inclusion is central to the procedures.2 The scope of inclusion is not limited to including disadvantaged population groups in a way that facilitates peaceful coexistence; rather, the far-reaching goal is to shape society in such a way that it meets the diverse demands of the most varied social groups and enables them to live together. In accordance with the claims of social inclusion, Integrated Transport Planning conceives public mobility for everyone. Unlike public transport, which is conceived and subsidised as a modest fallback option for a relatively small population group that cannot afford or does not wish to use private cars, public mobility aims at an inclusive transport system. Integrated Transport Planning is guided by the ‘Design for All’ approach3 and designs Public Mobility to be barrier-free from the outset so that it is equally usable by all and does not need to be equipped with special aids to enable access by disadvantaged sections of the population.4 For example, instead of installing a ramp that can be used by wheelchair users if necessary, access should be designed from the outset so that everyone can use it as a matter of course at any time. For example, a low-floor train is helpful for all users - not just for wheelchair users. The planning approach ‘Design for All’ is particularly suitable for integrated transport planning because users are actively involved in the development process in order to meet the overarching goal of inclusion (EDAD 2020).

 The human right to inclusion is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and was signed by Germany in 2009. https://www.institut-fuermenschenrechte.de/monitoring-stelle-un-brk/un-behindertenrechtskonvention/ (accessed, 14.04.2020) 3  Pschyrembel Online https://www.pschyrembel.de/Design%20f%C3%BCr%20Alle/ S039B/doc/ 4  In contrast to the concept of accessibility, Design for All has not yet been legally established in Germany, nor is it taught as a basic planning science at any university in Europe. 2

56

O. Schwedes

Without being able to elaborate on this here, it should be pointed out that the three outlined dimensions of political integration must be pursued across all political levels, i.e. federal, state and local politics.

4 Professional Integration With regard to professional integration, a distinction must be made between internal integration, which relates to the transport planning discipline itself, and external integration, which relates to neighbouring disciplines. The former deals with the various fields of planning within transport planning. While conventional transport planning sees its core tasks in the areas of infrastructure construction and traffic flow control, integrated transport planning introduces people and their mobility behaviour as a third planning field. Unlike conventional transport planning, which focuses on maintaining the flow of traffic by expanding the transport infrastructure and intelligent traffic control, integrated transport planning takes people’s demands and needs as its starting point and aims to support them in sustainable mobility behaviour. The three planning fields each require different specialist competences, such as civil engineering in the field of infrastructure construction, computerised information systems for traffic flow control and social science to examine human behaviour. With the internal technical integration, Integrated Transport Planning pursues a systematic linking of the different specialist disciplines, where the result is more than the sum of the individual fields of planning. Rather, a fundamental change in the target coordinates takes place, in that integrated transport planning no longer takes traffic flow as its starting point, but instead focuses on the transport-­ relevant decisions that precede the emergence of traffic and attempts to influence them in the direction of sustainable transport development (Kutter 2005). In contrast to internal integration, external integration is concerned with the relationship between transport planning and neighbouring disciplines. As with internal integration, it is assumed in this case that systematic cooperation between transport planning and other disciplines, such as public health, environmental or social planning, contributes to a new overall quality of planning. The added value can be demonstrated by the spiral of growth in the transport sector mentioned at the beginning. The decades-long race between public transport and the private car turned out every time like the one between the hare and the hedgehog; although public transport has always claimed to be better than its reputation, the car was always there before it. This is because public transport has had to enter a competition it cannot win. After all, the car is always the more attractive alternative in the dynamics of development described in what follows. According to this scenario, more

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

57

and more people are to be transported ever faster, over ever-greater distances. This requirement is the result of increasingly dispersed spatial structures, which mean that the same journeys are much longer today than they were 20 years ago (UBA 2020). For example, for the first time since World War II, 60% of the working population is forced to commute to work, and the distances have become longer and longer – and the trend is still rising. However, the responsibility for this spatial development lies precisely not with transport planning, which to a certain extent lags behind this development, but with spatial planning and settlement development (Kutter 2019). Since commercial locations as well as residential areas are developed in a widely dispersed manner, they are in many cases not accessible or only accessible with disproportionate effort using public transport, due to the lack of clustering. The only alternative is then usually the private car. Professional integration of transport planning thus makes it possible to avoid the emergence of such car-dependent structures from the outset. By participating in this growth paradigm, public transport not only supports a development that primarily benefits the car but by providing connections between dispersed spatial structures it also encourages development that is anything but sustainable. By contrast, public mobility depends on breaking the growth spiral ‘higher – faster – further’ in favour of a mobility strategy based on short journeys. This requires close cooperation between transport and spatial planning, which is still practiced in a rudimentary way at best, partly because the necessary instruments are lacking (Hartz 2019; Fürst 2010). This is because many of the decisions relevant to transport are already made by companies or private households when they decide on their location. In doing so, the effects on transport are all too rarely taken into account. Professional integration of transport and spatial planning must ensure in the future that these effects are taken into account. The example of a new public mobility shows that Integrated Transport Planning must take an interdisciplinary approach. In order to be able to achieve the goal of sustainable transport development, it must involve not only spatial planning but also, to a greater extent than before, the specialist disciplines of public health, environmental and social planning mentioned above (see Fig. 3.2). This opens up a multi-perspective view for integrated transport planning that does justice to the issue of transport, which cuts across and affects all areas of society to a greater or lesser extent. Transport is then no longer treated sectorally but is viewed as a phenomenon of society as a whole, reflecting its significance for social cohesion. Such multi-perspective planning that draws on various disciplines also requires new forms of institutionalisation that not only facilitate this but also provide support for it. This is demonstrated negatively by traditional public transport, whose institutional structure does not permit or even explicitly prevents new

58

O. Schwedes

Fig. 3.2  Functional integration. (Source: Schwedes & Rammert 2020)

mobility services. The institution of public transport is essentially constituted by legislation such as the Passenger Transport Act (PBefG), which clearly defines what counts as public transport and how it must be organised. According to this, it must be line-bound transport that travels certain routes with a certain regularity (reliability) using large vehicles and offers the possibility of boarding and alighting at previously defined stops before returning to the starting point. This automatically excludes a large number of flexible mobility services that exist today, which did not exist in 1934 when the PBefG was formulated. But the culture of public transport is also part of the institutional make up in that it shapes the self-image of the employees. This is expressed, for example, in the fact that not a single parking space for bicycles is to be found in front of the headquarters of the massive (100 metre-long) Berlin public transport authority and several dozen stickers have even been affixed to the façade that explicitly prohibit the parking of bicycles. The bicycle has yet to gain a place in the culture of traditional public transport. By contrast, integrated transport planning pursues an institutional constitution of public mobility, which is given a legal mandate that meets current societal requirements and pursues sustainable transport development, which, due to its spatial orientation, covers shorter distances, requires lower speeds and, as a result, generates less traffic. Integrated Transport Planning follows the quality criteria of political integration by communicating the objectives publicly, involving the population

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

59

and striving for results that include them. The counter-image to public mobility is in almost every respect traditional public transport, which does not problematise the competition for growth with motorised private transport, let alone open it up for public discussion, does not involve the population and does not see itself as a socially inclusive system, but limits itself to serving the socially excluded.

5 Spatial Integration Spatial integration is concerned with the content of the professional integration in the field of spatial planning outlined above but conceptually goes beyond it. With spatial integration, integrated transport planning responds to the realisation that transport development has shattered administrative boundaries at all political levels - national, regional and municipal. As early as the end of the 1960s, the urban sociologist Heide Berndt, in her study of the clique of German urban planners (which is still worth reading today), came to the conclusion: “The present division of the various administrations is outdated in light of the tendencies to expansion of large cities today, and prevents effective control over urban growth, especially integrated transport planning [author’s emphasis]. Collective planning between large cities and the small communities adjacent to them are only stopgap measures in the face of obsolete administrative divisions” (Berndt 1968, p. 163). This diagnosis has been confirmed again and again since then and applies to the urban or municipal level as well as to the regional and national level (Kutter 2019; Priebs 2019). With spatial integration, integrated transport planning strives for cooperation between actors from different regional authorities across administrative boundaries. In order for the region to become a level of political action, corresponding structures of governance must be established in which “the actors are networked and a good positioning and external presentation of the overall space become possible” (Priebs 2019, p. 314; Kiwitt 2019). The prerequisite for this is that the actors at the respective municipal, regional or national level recognise the interdependencies that transcend administrative boundaries and grasp the opportunities for joint policy-making. Only then can Integrated Transport Planning establish a public mobility system that enables sustainable development at the municipal, regional and national level in the long term. Again, by way of illustration, let us conclude with traditional public transport using the example of the two federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg as contrasting foils (Bodenschatz 2016). While the two state-owned transport authorities (BVG & ViP) are strongly represented politically by their state governments and are accordingly empowered to shape policy, this is not the case for the Berlin Brandenburg Transport Association (VBB),

60

O. Schwedes

which is stuck, as it were, between a rock and a hard place. For more than 20 years, this constellation has resulted in political blockades with regard to the guiding principle of Integrated Transport Planning, which are reflected in a profound ­discrepancy between programmatic aspirations and actual development. In the case of the joint Berlin/Brandenburg regional planning, two lines of conflict overlap. First, since the failure of the merger of the two states, cooperation between them is still characterized by common interests, but less and less by a commonality of interests. Rather, the two states have been competing fiercely against each other. In the process, they are competing both for businesses and for residential populations in order to secure the corresponding tax revenues. In this context, conflicts of interest inevitably come to the fore, which stand in the way of a joint action strategy in conformity with a publicly propagated concept of integrated settlement and transport. Secondly, and to a certain extent transversely, the interests of the state governments conflict with those of the municipalities. This is particularly problematic in the case of Brandenburg. Even where the two states agree on a joint approach, this is thwarted in terms of regional development, particularly by the self-interests of the Brandenburg municipalities. Irrespective of their respective transport connections in conformity with the concept of integrated transport, the municipalities encompass extensive settlement areas that promote further urban sprawl (Schwedes 2023, p. 119ff.). Against this background, it is not surprising that each state prepares its own transport development plan instead of developing a spatially integrated regional strategy. Under these conditions, public transport cannot contribute to sustainable regional transport development. But what would public mobility established in conformity with Integrated Transport Planning look like?

6 Public Mobility To this point, the fields of action of Integrated Transport Planning have been explained and their newness compared to conventional transport planning has been elucidated on the basis of public mobility and in distinction to traditional public transport. In the following, various dimensions of public mobility will be highlighted, which, when viewed together, provide an initial overall picture. The individual dimensions of public mobility will then be elaborated in subsequent chapters, providing a deeper understanding of what we have in mind. In the context of Integrated Transport Planning, public mobility denotes the normative claim to offer a sustainable transport service for all members of society that is in equal measure economically efficient, ecologically compatible and socially equitable (Becker 2019). This fundamental aspiration fits into the concept of

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

61

public services and at the same time takes it further (see the contribution by Schwedes & Ringwald in this volume). While traditional public transport has the task of providing a minimum of mobility to all members of society within the framework of public services, it primarily serves the social dimension of sustainable transport development. In order to meet this limited aspiration, high financial subsidies of public transport are also considered acceptable. In contrast, public mobility involves a much more ambitious aspiration by conceptually incorporating not only the social dimension of mobility but also the ecological and economic dimensions, all on an equal footing. This means, on the one hand, that the negative environmental impacts of transport are taken into account and, on the other hand, that the economic costs associated with transport are included in the evaluation of public mobility. Accordingly, a private car cannot, by definition, be part of public mobility, since private ownership does not allow public access. However, a publically-­accessible automobile (car sharing) is also usually the least economically efficient, ecologically sustainable and socially equitable mode of transport. For a car to be considered a component in the context of public mobility, the conditions would have to be defined in such a way that a high use rate is guaranteed, the vehicle is as fuel-efficient as possible, and it is equally accessible or affordable for all. These and other conditions would have to be regulated in a legally binding manner in a new Passenger Transportation Act in the future. In contrast to traditional public transport, which aims to open up spaces and create access for people in competition with the car, public mobility aims to ensure social participation for all. A fundamental misunderstanding of conventional transport planning is to equate spatial development and accessibility with social participation. The two can coincide, but they do not have to and, above all, they are not desirable from the point of view of social sustainability (see the contribution by Daubitz in this volume). Rather, public mobility with its integrative approach seeks precisely to organize social participation via local relationships and thus avoid traffic. This positive ecological effect is combined at the same time with the social aspiration to guarantee social participation for all, which can be made equally barrier-­free for all, by means of short distances. From the perspective of public mobility, ecology and social issues are therefore not opposed to each other, but are mutually dependent (Brocchi 2019). Since ecologically compatible mobility is directed toward local relationships that enable social participation for all members of society, it is also socially just and, by reducing overall social costs, also economically efficient as a result. Public mobility understood in this way, which serves the common good as part of the state’s provision of public services, can be traced back to the constitutionally guaranteed principle of the welfare state and, unlike public transport, is not a handout but a fundamental right (Hill 1996).

62

O. Schwedes

As part of a reformulated Daseinsvorsorge, public mobility forms an institutional constitution for the multitude of new mobility services (see Wolking’s contribution in this volume). Whereas the original concept of Daseinsvorsorge ­presupposed an authoritarian state that provided services such as public transport itself, public mobility is based on a different understanding of the state. On the one hand, the hierarchically structured and centrally controlled state is no longer the only political authority that decides on the design of public mobility. Instead, the state authorities are confronted with a growing number of civil society actors who participate in decision-making processes in transport policy and thus exert influence on public planning – the state now has company, so to speak (Schuppert 2008, p. 189). On the other hand, the state sees itself less and less as a service state that performs public tasks itself, and instead increasingly sees itself as a guarantor state which ensures that public tasks are carried out: “The state […] refrains from performing the tasks incumbent upon it itself in more and more areas (primarily public services), but instead commissions private parties to perform tasks […] within the framework of regulatory requirements set by the state (e.g., objectives, procedural rules, organizational models)” (Schoch 2008, p. 241 f.). For public mobility, this means that it integrates the private providers of new mobility services via organizational models and procedural rules and controls them politically in terms of the objective of sustainable transport development oriented toward the common good (Knauff 2004). In this way, the old procedures of State control in public transport are replaced by new forms of governance of public mobility. Apart from the involvement of private companies in ensuring public mobility, another task is active participation on the part of citizens (see the contribution by Schneidmesser in this volume). In order for public mobility to live up to its own aspiration, namely making people with their requirements and needs the starting point of deliberations in transport planning, it is dependent on an intensive exchange with citizens. In contrast to public transport, which for a long time treated the users as ‘transport cases’ and recently reduced them to the role of customers, public mobility sees itself as a social product that is politically supported by the citizens. To the extent that citizens identify with public mobility, their conception of it also changes. This can be seen in the transition from public transport to private car transport. The notion of public transport today is shaped by the view that collective transport is nineteenth-century transport that doesn’t fit individualized, modern twentieth-century societies. Public transport, the dominant view after World War II, was a historical relic; the future belonged to the automobile and its promise of individual freedom and self-realization – The American Way of Life (Sachs 1990). Corresponding to the real infrastructures of the car society are mental infrastruc-

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

63

tures that shape people’s ideas and perceptions as well as guide their actions (Welzer 2011). Accordingly, people’s conception of collective transport is measured against the private car and still today leads to the selective perception of public transport as deficient and outmoded. As the cultural studies researcher, Ernest Gellner (1993) sees it, this system of ideas and perceptions forms the culture of public transport. Accordingly, the prerequisites for a culture of public mobility lie in establishing positive ideas and perceptions of collectively organized transport. A necessary but not sufficient condition is therefore an understanding of public mobility as an essential contribution to the common good, which opens up the possibility that the perception and evaluation of the private car will also change. Such a cultural change is always linked to expectations that have a binding character and are difficult to eradicate. For example, car culture is associated with the expectation of having the right to a free parking space on public streets. This expectation results from one of many privileges of car culture that cannot be maintained in a culture of public mobility. Consequently, the shift from car culture to a culture of public mobility necessarily involves social conflict and social struggle (see Hoor’s contribution in this volume). A law is not everything, but in a constitutional state anything that cannot invoke a law is hardly noticed. This is demonstrated by public transport, which has been able to hold its own in Germany for the last 100 years only because it is legitimized as a necessary public service through the political construct of Daseinsvorsorge, and because this service is laid down in a legally binding way in the public transport laws of the federal states (Länder). The special nature of this regulation can be seen particularly well where it does not exist, namely in the United States of America (for the following, cf. Jones 2010). In the USA, as in Europe, the transport companies, which were still privately run at the beginning of the twentieth century, slid into an economic crisis with the increasing spread of the car. While the decision was made in European countries to nationalize the companies and subsidize them with public money in the interest of the common good, transport companies in the USA were left to market forces. There was no political interest in saving public transport, let alone a law to protect it. This is the reason why there is almost no public transport in the USA today. For the successful establishment of public mobility, this means that it is dependent on a corresponding legal basis that guarantees legally binding implementation. In this context, it is possible to build on the long-established local public transport law and then develop it further in line with the comprehensive concept of public mobility. The Berlin Mobility Act is the only one of its kind in the world to follow this approach, in that it places a bicycle traffic law, a pedestrian traffic law, an economic traffic law and a law for new mobility services alongside the local

64

O. Schwedes

traffic law (see Kirchner’s contribution in this volume). The fact that there is no law on automobile traffic already expresses the programmatic thrust of Berlin’s mobility law, which explicitly wants to promote environmentally-friendly transport at the expense of automobile traffic. A major challenge will be to integrate the previously separate legal texts into a law for public mobility at the appropriate time. Like the Local Transport Act for traditional public transport, the Public Mobility Act should also contain a financial legal entitlement. This no longer has the character of a handout granted to public transport by society; rather, the financial contribution for public mobility is measured by how much sustainable transport development is worth to society in the future. Accordingly, public mobility requires new concepts of financing that adequately reflect society’s contribution to sustainable transport development oriented toward the common good (see the contribution by Mietzsch in this volume). In order for Integrated Transport Planning to actively shape the transition to public mobility, it requires appropriate information. Although large-scale traffic surveys are conducted regularly in Germany, they are so aggregated that they are of little value at the municipal level – i.e., where policy and planning are closest to the people. Even more problematic from the perspective of public mobility is that these quantitative surveys exclusively count traffic, but use the latter as a measure of mobility. One of the largest surveys in Germany defines a measurement of mobility as follows: “A key indicator for describing mobility is the proportion of people who leave their home at least once in a day and thus generate traffic: this is the mobility rate or outside-the-home share” (Nobis and Kuhnimhof 2018, p. 25). In the subsequent analysis of the data, this connection between “outside-the-home share” – i.e., traffic – and mobility is further reinforced by distinguishing between “mobile” and “non-mobile” people (ibid., pp. 25 ff., 131). In contrast, Integrated Transport Planning makes a conceptual distinction between traffic and mobility, the latter being measured not in terms of traffic movements but in terms of the degree of social participation. Unlike traffic, which can be physically experienced and objectively counted, mobility describes subjective spaces of possibility for moving from one place to another (Schwedes et al. 2018). The analytical significance of the conceptual distinction between traffic and mobility can be illustrated by a concrete example: A person who can no longer afford the high rents in the city and is forced to commute 100 km a day to her workplace for a low-wage job is traveling a lot in traffic terms without being able to provide herself and her family with adequate social participation, thanks to the low wage. Contrary to everyday common sense, this person, who generates a lot of traffic, is nevertheless not particularly mobile. In contrast, a well-educated urban citizen who can reach her workplace on foot and has a high income is highly mobile. This is

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

65

because she is able to enjoy the diverse offerings of urban society to the fullest, not least by being able to afford the high rents, but without generating much traffic. The conceptual distinction between traffic and mobility makes it possible to thematize social participation without necessarily associating it with traffic. Accordingly, the concept of public mobility aims to ensure adequate social participation (mobility) for all citizens without them having to rely on a steadily growing volume of traffic – for example, by forcing them to buy a car to commute to work every day. In order for Integrated Transport Planning to provide support for people being sufficiently mobile regardless of growing traffic volumes, it required data on mobility in addition to traffic data. Public mobility must be measured by whether it lives up to its own aspirations and can ensure adequate social participation. In order to be able to evaluate this in the future, Integrated Transport Planning requires appropriate criteria (see the contribution by Rammert in this volume). Just as data must be collected where people live their everyday lives, the municipal level is also the most important field for shaping transport policy because it is here that people’s concrete requirements and needs can be addressed. In order for cities, towns and municipalities to remain capable of taking action, they must be aware of the transport policy challenges on the ground and develop an idea of what goals they want to achieve in the long term. To do this, they need to develop an appropriate understanding of local mobility conditions through ongoing dialog with their citizens. This requires continuous documentation and evaluation of the measures implemented and the results, which makes it possible to acknowledge proven interventions and learn from mistakes. In light of the emerging major transformation of urban spaces and their associated re-allocation, which poses new challenges for all those involved, so-called mobility reporting is an important and necessary planning tool (see the contribution by Hausigke and Kruse in this volume). The major importance of valid data for informed policy-making and planning has recently been dramatically demonstrated in the global Corona pandemic. The fact that Germany was able to contain the spread so well was mainly due to the fact that it was not the first country affected. On the one hand, Germany was thus forewarned and was able to prepare for the pandemic; on the other hand, it had an information advantage since it was able to draw on the experience of the countries already affected. Nevertheless, the situation remained unclear for weeks due to a lack of information: it was rarely known who had infected whom and when, how many people were already infected, and how the infection was spreading. For a long time, therefore, policymakers were unable to act in a very targeted manner, especially since the information situation kept changing. Active health planning was hardly possible under these conditions; rather, all those involved were forced

66

O. Schwedes

to constantly adapt to the ever-changing situation. What is an extremely exceptional situation in health policy is still the normal state of affairs in transport policy, with its so-called adaptation planning. While evidence-based planning based on legally prescribed reporting was established in health policy 30 years ago, transport policy still lacks a comparable planning instrument today.

7 Conclusion The starting point of this chapter was the thesis: Public transport is dead, long live public mobility! An essential basis for the transformation of public transport into public mobility is Integrated Transport Planning. It is based on the fundamental insight of transport studies that transport is a social phenomenon that must be considered in all its facets and effects. Traffic is both an expression of historically specific social conditions and an element that shapes these conditions. The respective technology connects up with social conditions, which were always quite different in character – this applies to the railroad society of the past as well as to the car society of the present. Accordingly, transport policy must see itself as social policy, and Integrated Transport Planning aspires to shape social conditions, instead of merely administering them as conventional transport planning has done to date (Schwedes 2018). This aspiration is confronted with the established, large-scale technical system of auto-mobility, which has proven extremely successful over many decades and whose institutions stand in the way of the transformation to public mobility. According to the historian of technology, Jürgen Radkau (1991, p. 8), experience has shown that there are two time windows in which social control of large-scale technical systems seems possible. First, when they are still in their infancy, but it is precisely then that we tend to project our pipe dreams onto them instead of critically reflecting on the technology in its social context. Secondly, in old age, when they have passed their zenith and their power to shape society is waning. The difficulty, however, is to determine which stage a system is currently in. Here, of course, it must be added that a large-scale technical system is not a living being and that organic phase models therefore do not carry much weight. For example, the end of the automobile has been proclaimed many times in the last 40 years, only to turn out to be a pipe dream in retrospect. Even in the last 10 years, the number of privately-owned cars in Germany has risen from 37 to 42 million, and further growth is predicted. Accordingly, the large-scale technological system around the automobile appears to be very vital and by no means at the end of its life span. But it is probably not right to wait for the supposed demise of a large-scale

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

67

technical system before intervening politically. After all, Integrated Transport Planning aims to influence, to change social conditions. Without giving up this ­aspiration, however, planning today should at the same time maintain a realistic modesty toward the possibilities of steering or controlling large-scale technical systems. “In order to obtain a realistic picture of the genesis of large systems and not to fall victim to illusions of their being susceptible to planning, it is important to consider not only the planned but also the unplanned elements in the emergence of systems. Wide-ranging and complex technical systems could hardly ever come into being if they had to be projected in this form from the beginning, because there is generally a dearth of authorities possessing such a capacity for planning and implementation. The large networks of urban technology developed at a time when there was hardly any institutionalized urban planning anywhere. But networking also happens continuously without any great plan: simply due to the limitations of the available space. (Radkau 1991, p. 7)

It is also possible that today limited urban space is the reason for a turnaround in transportation that is directed against the automobile. Unlike in the past, when transport planning came up with master plans to shape cities in its image, the task of Integrated Transport Planning today is not to deliver the plan. Rather, it upholds society’s claim to shape the future by inviting all stakeholders to define a corridor of goals within which they would like to endeavor to achieve the politically mandated goal of sustainable transport development. If in this process of societal negotiation the automobile proves to be standing in the way, it could make way for the new large-scale system of public mobility sooner than expected. The multitude of transport policy initiatives from the ranks of civil society point to this, as does the growing loss of political legitimacy of old established players in the field of transport policy, such as the Federal Ministry of Transport, the German Automotive Industry, the General German Automobile Club, or the Road and Transportation Research Association, to name just a few.

References Becker, Udo. 2019. Worin liegt das Ziel aller Verkehrsplanung und wie verträgt sich das mit konsequentem Umweltschutz? In Handbuch der kommunalen Verkehrsplanung, Loseblattsammlung. Hrsg. Jan Deuster et al., Beitragsnummer 3.1.1.1. Berlin/Offenbach: VDE. Berndt, Heide. 1968. Das Gesellschaftsbild bei Stadtplanern. Stuttgart: K. Krämer.

68

O. Schwedes

Bodenschatz, Harald. 2016. Visionen gesucht  – Die Großstadtregion Berlin. Merkur Heft 803: 55–62. Brocchi, Davide. 2019. Nachhaltigkeit und soziale Ungleichheit. Warum es keine Nachhaltigkeit ohne soziale Gerechtigkeit geben kann. Buchreihe essentials. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Butterwegge, Christoph, B. Lösch und R. Ptak. 2017. Kritik des Neoliberalismus. S. 79–122. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Drucker, Peter F. 1963. Managing for Business Effectiveness. Harvard Business Review Heft 3, 53–60. EDAD – Design für Alle – Deutschland e. V. 2020. Barrierefreiheit mit attraktiver Gestaltung verbinden. https://www.design-fuer-alle.de/design-fuer-alle/. Accessed: 14.04.2020. Engartner, Tim. 2008. Die Privatisierung der Deutschen Bahn: Über die Implementierung Marktorientierter Verkehrspolitik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Fischer, Frank, A.  Durnová, M.  Orsini, D.  Torgerson, Hrsg. 2015. Handbook of Critical Policy Studies. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fürst, Dietrich. 2010. Raumplanung: Herausforderungen des deutschen Institutionensystems. Buchreihe Planungswissenschaftliche Studien zu Raumordnung und Regionalentwicklung, Band 1, Hrsg. H.  H. Blotevogel, R.  Danielzyk, C.  Diller, S.  Siedentop, D.  Vallée und T. Wiechmann. Lemgo: Dorothea Rohn. Gellner, Ernest. 1993. Pflug, Schwert und Buch. Grundlinien der Menschheitsgeschichte. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Hartz, Andrea. 2019. Dynamische Stadtlandschaften. Planerin Heft 3: 14–17. Heuser, Tilmann und Werner Reh. 2016. Die Bundesverkehrswegeplanung: Anforderungen an die zukünftige Verkehrsinfratsrukturpolitik des Bundes. In Handbuch Verkehrspolitik, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes, Weert Canzler, Andreas Knie, 237–264. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Hill, Hermann. 1996. In welchen Grenzen ist kommunalwirtschaftliche Betätigung Daseinsvorsorge? Vortrag beim 5. Kommunalpolitischen Forum der IHKs in NRW am 29.8.1996 in Castrop-Rauxel, Manuskript: 8f. Jones, David W. 2010. Mass Motorization and Mass Transit. An American History and Policy Analysis. Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana Univ Press. Kiwitt, Thomas. 2019. Modell Verband Region Stuttgart. Planerin Heft 3: 21–23. Knauff, Matthias. 2004. Der Gewährleistungsstaat: Reform der Daseinsvorsorge. Eine rechtswissenschaftliche Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des ÖPNV. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Kutter, Eckhard. 2019. Stadtstruktur und Erreichbarkeit in der postfossilen Zukunft. Schriftenreihe für Verkehr und Technik, Bd. 99. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Kutter, Eckhard. 2005. Entwicklung innovativer Verkehrsstrategien für die mobile Gesellschaft: Aufgaben Maßnahmenspektrum Problemlösungen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Mayntz, Renate, Fritz Scharpf, Hrsg. 1973. Planungsorganisation. Die Diskussion um die Reform von Regierung und Verwaltung des Bundes. München: Piper. Nobis, Claudia, T.  Kuhnimhof. 2018. Mobilität in Deutschland  – MiD Ergebnisbericht. Studie von infas, DLR, IVT und infas 360 im Auftrag des Bundesministers für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. Bonn, Berlin. Planka.nu. 2015. VerkehrsMachtOrdnung. Zur Kritik des Mobilitätsparadigmas. Münster: Unrast.

3  Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning

69

Priebs, Axel. 2019. Die Stadtregion. Stuttgart: UTB. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2017. Die Gegen-Demokratie. Politik im Zeitalter des Misstrauens. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition. Radkau, Joachim. 1991. Zum ewigen Wachstum verdammt? Historisches über Jugend und Alter großer technischer Systeme. Forschungsgruppe “Große technische Systeme” des Forschungsschwerpunkts Technik – Arbeit – Umwelt am Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, FS I I 91-505. Berlin. https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/1991/ii91-­505. pdf. Accessed: 28.04.2020. Sachs, Wolfgang. 1990. Die Liebe zum Automobil. Ein Rückblick in die Geschichte unserer Wünsche. Hamburg: Reinbek. Schoch, Friedrich. 2008. Gewährleistungsverwaltung: Stärkung der Privatrechtsgesellschaft? Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, 241–247. Schuppert, Gunnar F. 2008. Die neue Verantwortungsteilung zwischen Staat und Gesellschaft – oder: Wessen Wohl ist das Gemeinwohl? vhw Heft 4, 189–193. Schwedes, Oliver. 2018. Verkehrspolitik als Gesellschaftspolitik. In Verkehrspolitik. Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. 3–24. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schwedes, Oliver, S.  Daubitz, A.  Rammert, B.  Sternkopf, M.  Hoor. 2018. Kleiner Begriffskanon der Mobilitätsforschung. IVP-Discussion Paper, Heft 1. Berlin. Schwedes, Oliver. 2023. Transport in Capitalism. Transport Policy as Social Policy. Bielefeld. Transcript. Schwedes, Oliver und A.  Rammert. 2020. Was ist Integrierte Verkehrsplanung. Eine Selbstverständigung. IVP-Discussion Paper, Heft 2, Berlin. Seibel, Wolfgang. 2016. Verwaltung verstehen. Eine theoriegeschichtliche Einführung. Berlin: Suhrkamp. UBA  – Umweltbundesamt. 2020. Mobilität privater Haushalte. https://www. umweltbundesamt.de/daten/private-­h aushalte-­k onsum/mobilitaet-­p rivater-­ haushalte#verkehrsaufwand-­im-­personentransport (18.06.2020). Vereinte Nationen. 2019. Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Bericht 2019. New York. https:// www.un.org/Depts/german/pdf/SDG%20Bericht%20aktuell.pdf. Accessed: 15.04.2020. Welzer, Harald. 2011. Mentale Infrastrukturen: Wie das Wachstum in die Welt und in die Seelen kam. Schriften zur Ökologie der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Bd. 14.

4

Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics Stephan Daubitz

1 Introduction Whereas in the past transport policy and planning were mostly limited to reducing spatial hindrances in order to facilitate smooth automotive ‘traffic flows’, the inclusion of conceptions of equity, the precise distinction between the concepts of traffic and mobility, as well as the inclusion of the individual’s subjective perceptions have opened up the possibility of designing an innovative form of transport planning or mobility policy. Increasingly, action in the field is also guided by the realization that mobility enables social participation and that designing it equitably is thus essential to leading a ‘good life’ (Sen 2012; Nussbaum et al. 2014). The link between participation and the design of mobility has now also found its way onto the municipal level. For example, the Urban Development Plan for Transport and the newly-created Mobility Act are guiding the actions being taken in Berlin. In §1 of the Mobility Act, “ensuring equal opportunities for mobility in all areas of Berlin” is formulated as a goal. “This is intended to ensure participation in social life for everyone.” Participation has become a key concept in research and in political discourse with regard to the future of social interaction. Increasing participatory research and the transdisciplinary effort not only to produce results in research, but also to shape the situation locally, is evidence that the key concept of participation is also increasingly having an impact in the field of planning. Participatory methods such as S. Daubitz (*) Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_4

71

72

S. Daubitz

“community mapping”, “photo voice”, “planning for real”, etc. are being applied in research projects with municipalities and citizens on questions of transport and social policy (see the contribution of Hausigke & Kruse in this volume).

2 The Key Concept of Participation Material resources and political rights are essential preconditions for participation. This includes available infrastructures as well as individual abilities to take advantage of the opportunities on offer. The multidimensionality of participation finds expression in the different forms that it takes, e.g. gainful employment, family or social relationships (Bartelheimer 2007). Thus, participation in gainful employment is determined by the social resources of labor market policy, businesses, etc. – resulting in livelihood-securing participation in the labor force. The lack of social resources in the family, business or neighborhood can, in extreme cases, lead to isolation and thus exclusion from close social relationships. Political and social rights as well as participation in culture and education indicate the importance of the social resources of the education system, the social security system and opportunities for political participation. Since participation takes the form of individual action in social relations, it is important to consider these individual components for the field of mobility policy. In a canon of terms for mobility research, the authors from the Department of Integrated Transport Planning at the Technical University of Berlin have defined the terms transport and mobility in such a way that they are manageable and practicable for research and political work. With the distinction between traffic (actually moving from one place to another) and an expanded concept of mobility that includes subjective perceptions, it is possible to derive a degree of participation and subsequently enlarge individual spaces of possibility (Schwedes et al. 2018). Thus, mobility is not reduced to active movement or actual changes of place, but is associated with the possibility to pursue and realize one’s life goals, to form and maintain social networks, to further one’s education, etc. Thus, the potentials of mobility are also crucial for a ‘good life’. The possibility of a change of location promotes the feeling of being able to act independently, of not being dependent. In order to live a ‘good life’, mobility is important for people to be able to fulfill their needs. The concept of the ‘good life’ can also be described as well-being, which is associated with or seen as synonymous with notions of happiness, life satisfaction, and fulfillment (Delbosc 2012; Vella-Brodrick and Stanley 2013). Accordingly, a ‘good life’ is no longer measured by the miles traveled, but by the degree of individual agency. Anglo-Saxon mobility research in particular has adopted the con-

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

73

cept of well-being and linked it to considerations regarding social exclusion and possible limitations on mobility. Australian mobility researcher Alexa Delbosc (2012, p. 25) emphasizes that the main goal of any planning is to create quality of life and well-being for the population. By disregarding this objective, transport policy would promote mobility in an alienated form, failing to take into account negative externalities of increased traffic (noise, pollution) and their negative physical and psychological effects on well-being. Mobility research, which focuses primarily on the exclusion of population groups and looks at the barriers that impede mobility and thus limit social participation, has identified some factors on which mobility policy as a policy of participation can build in order to establish political strategies and identify concrete measures. The research provides indications as to which factors need to be taken into account in order to enable participation through mobility. Mobility research is still dominated by transport-related measurement, which examines ease of access to different means of transport and their availability. Here, barriers that inhibit access to transport systems (e.g. no public transport stops) are identified. Classical analyses of accessibility are mostly focused on the location of everyday facilities. Here, long distances to basic facilities such as schools, shopping opportunities, etc. are problematic for users. Financial barriers, such as high ticket prices for public transportation, prevent low-income earners from using a transportation system. Temporal barriers are defined as the lack of temporal fit between users’ needs and the transport service (e.g. low frequency of a transport service). Furthermore, personal barriers (physical and mental limitations, but also cultural barriers) should be considered as a component of non-use of a public transport system or a specific mode of transport (e.g. bicycle) (Lucas 2012).1 The accessibility perspective of mobility research examines the social stratification within a community in order to identify social needs and individual user needs when investigating disadvantages in mobility. Such an approach has also always aimed to identify and remedy poor provision to compensate for the individual disadvantages associated with lack of mobility. Location-based accessibility analyses, data on transport behavior and the transport system formed the basis for this form

 Karen Lucas reviewed international studies on mobility and exclusion in 2012 and identified seven dimensions that inhibit participation. One particular form of spatial exclusion is represented by gated communities, to which certain social groups are denied access through active exclusion. Gated communities exist not just in the USA or in Latin America; this form of housing has also become widespread in Germany since the end of the 1990s (Glasze 2002; Wehrheim 2002). 1

74

S. Daubitz

of accessibility planning, which was established in Great Britain, for instance (Schwedes and Daubitz 2011). When it comes to considerations such as carrying out accessibility planning or the goal of enabling certain population groups to participate in social life by means of appropriate measures, ideas of social justice usually formed the normative ­underlying framework. Also the foundation of the Social Unit in Great Britain in 2003, which set itself the goal of investigating the connection between mobility and poverty and addressing it by taking the appropriate steps, was also embedded in a debate about social justice. The program initiated by the then Labour government was seen as a building block for achieving greater social justice in the country. Fundamental to this is the idea that inequality in living conditions (income, education, etc.) is not seen as the result of competition but, on the contrary, is viewed as the most important obstacle to mobility. This leads to a functional view of opportunities for mobility, or barriers to it, which stand in the way of the goal of achieving social justice (Hradil and Schiener 2001). In the field of transportation system design, the creation and provision of access and the removal of barriers constitutes a central issue to be addressed. By including subjective perceptions of spaces of possibility in mobility research and also in planning, the limited view of access to transportation is expanded. Thus, for example, the ability to plan a trip by public transport to an unfamiliar place and to complete the trip successfully are an equally important indicator for the attainment of mobility. Lack of skills, lack of knowledge and negative experiences in using transportation have a negative impact on well-being. Participation in mobility is multidimensional and encompasses the fields of transport infrastructure, spatial organization, actual activities, sociocultural conditions and subjective perceptions (see contribution by Rammert in this volume).

3 The Concept of the Capability Approach The capability approach established in the health sciences and in the Federal government’s poverty and wealth reporting could form the decisive normative basis for the field of mobility policy (Bundesregierung 2005, p. 7). The concept of the capability approach consists of a set of ideas, concepts, and methods mainly developed by the Indian economist Amartya Sen (2012), combining individual and collective welfare. Here, poverty and the resulting injustice are not reduced to the distribution of goods. Fundamental to the concept is that comprehensive social participation is seen as a measure to strive for. Social rights and the democratic constitution of a society

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

75

form the fundamental basis to provide people with opportunities for fulfilment. Sen’s discussion of John Rawls’ theory of justice (1971, 2001) led to a clear distinction from contract-theoretical theories of justice. The development of contract-­ theoretical principles of justice and their design presupposes the idea that no one knows his place in society. It is, so to speak, a thought experiment that precedes the development and configuring of principles of justice. This is done on the basis of the idea that no one has yet found his place in society, that no social position, no personal conceptions of norms and no physical and psychological characteristics have been assigned. Thus, from the fact that for everyone there is the possibility of belonging to any gender, to any class, it would necessarily follow that justice can be guaranteed to each/any individual. Ultimately, each individual would wish to be free from poverty and would thus develop the appropriate social institutions to protect against this situation. A major criticism of Rawls’ conception of justice is that he ignores power relations. Amartya Sen developed his idea of justice in the debate with Rawls. His example of three children competing for the possession of a flute using different arguments has become famous. The first child argues that, unlike the other children, he has mastered the instrument. The second child points out that he is poor and has no other toys. The third child states that he made the flute himself. Sen shows in this example that there is a reasonable plurality, which is inevitable. This is also transferable to the possible viewpoints of different theorists of justice. As stated earlier, theorists of different schools of thought, i.e., utilitarians, economic egalitarians, labor theorists, or sober libertarians may all hold that there is a straightforward just and easy solution, but they would each argue for a different, manifestly correct solution. It may be that there is in fact no identifiable perfectly just social settlement, from which an impartial agreement would emerge. (Sen 2012, p. 43 f.)

Thus, since agreement on a general point of view does not seem possible, Sen proposes a comparative perspective that looks at concrete injustices and the ways to address them. These fundamental deliberations on individual opportunities for fulfilment in their dependence on the economic, political and social conditions of a society influenced, among other things, the conceptualization of the United Nations Human Development Index. The empowerment approach aspires to capture the development of quality of life and reducing the latter to terms such as happiness and satisfaction is not helpful in assessing it. In order to understand the empowerment approach, it is necessary to explain Sens’ central terms, namely the concepts of “functionings”, “capabilities”, “available resources” and “conversion factors”. Functionings are the material life opportunities, the circumstances or occupations that are actually possible for

76

S. Daubitz

any given person (Bartelheimer 2007). Capabilities are individually realizable functionalities, i.e. the possibility of attaining a (potential) situation and of pursuing (potential) occupations. Thus, individual capabilities as well as the availability of goods are required to be able to realize functionings. Social conditions and ­personal circumstances (conversion factors) influence individual capabilities and the availability of goods. The French sociologist Jean-Michel Bonvin (2006) described the concept of the empowerment approach and its central terms using an example from mobility and thus already presented the possible concretizations of a mobility policy that views itself as a policy of participation. Bonvin uses the example of cycling to describe how participation can ‘work’. Thus, mobility by bicycle (resources), that is, the activity of riding a bicycle, would be a functioning (functionings). In order to ride a bicycle, the person must be physically able or have the ability (capabilities) to use the bicycle. Capabilities are therefore possibilities for action or opportunities for realization that are available to a given person. And of course, the resource “bicycle” must be available in the first place. The ability to convert certain goods into functionalities depends on social, environment-­specific conversion factors. Many determining indicators can be identified here: social and cultural norms, political structures, climatic conditions. Related to the bicycle example, the functioning would depend on the existence of an adequate bicycle infrastructure (bicycle lanes, parking facilities, etc.) or whether it is socially or culturally permitted to ride a bicycle at all. In fact, it is a problem for low-income people if the bicycle is stolen or damaged, since financial barriers often prevent the acquisition of a replacement bicycle. Furthermore, adequate bicycle infrastructure must also be in place for the person to use the bicycle. And, of course, the person must have the ability to ride a bicycle in the first place. Only when these conditions are met can one speak of freedom of choice or a possible form of mobility be implemented. The example already points to the possible interventions to make mobility inclusive. On the one hand, an appropriate infrastructure must be created so that life goals can be successfully realized. On the other hand, personal spaces of opportunity must be opened up in order to improve participation. Mobility is not explicitly mentionedas a capability within the empowerment approach. Sen, however, has always emphasized a flexible approach, which should specifically look at what the requirements are for a freedom-based, just society. In doing so, he explicitly includes, in addition to the basic requirements of well-being (integrity of the person, etc.), the ability to set and achieve life goals. The philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum (2000) compiled a list of criteria for the ‘good life’, which she also does not consider static. The ability to form family and

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

77

social ties is linked to the ability to be mobile. In order to form or maintain family and social ties, opportunities for personal encounters are necessary. Here, the ability to be mobile represents an important link so that the encounter is possible at all.

4 What Prevents a Mobility Policy from Being a Participation Policy? Amartya Sen (2012) and Canadian-born Gerald Cohen (2008) doubt that liberal capitalist societies can produce principles of justice. Rather, they argue, inequalities are entrenched in the social institutions of such societies. According to Sen, inequalities arise in situations where rights to certain goods, rather than the goods themselves, are lacking. Inequality is defined by a person’s relationship to the good, not by the good itself. Inequality thus arises from the difference between who can ultimately afford the price of using public transportation and who is allowed to use it at all. Low-income households have to spend a much larger share of their total budget on mobility than higher-income households (Altenburg et al. 2009). Low-income households are therefore forced to reallocate accordingly within their overall budget in order to have access to mobility at all. Another financial barrier arises from increases in the cost of public mobility. For example, public transportation has become significantly more expensive in Germany in recent years: the price rose by 79% from 2000 to 2018. In these 18 years, the purchase and maintenance of motor vehicles also became 36% more expensive (Destatis 2018). Likewise, with the dismantling of local public transport, especially in rural areas, the dependence on one means of transport and its transport infrastructure became more and more manifest. Thus, people have been deprived of opportunities to move around sustainably at all, since access to public transport is either no longer available or only in a ‘thinned out’ form. Thus, the spatial component also becomes an important dimension of equity. Following Sen’s empowerment approach – i.e., a shift from considering the possession of assets to the possibility of making use of an opportunity – Jane Samuels (2005) identifies structures of injustice, particularly in megacities. She presents indicators that can be used to measure freedom. Thus, the right to an urban living environment that facilitates human development represents an essential basic good. Numerous barriers lead to people being deprived of this basic good, especially people with disabilities. These include barriers to mobility (e.g., lack of access to transportation), but also the displacement of social life from the streets as a result of car-centered transport planning. Establishing land use equity, for example, is an essential dimension to address in

78

S. Daubitz

order to restore livable environments. The large survey on transport behavior “Mobility in Germany” shows that a private motor vehicle is parked predominantly at the place of residence for about 23 hours per day (Nobis and Kuhnimhof 2018, p.  5). In cities, half of the public road space is occupied by parked cars, which entails high costs for municipalities. In the legal opinion it issued, Agora ­ Verkehrswende calculated that “providing a parking space costs about 1500–5000 euros and the maintenance of the parking space costs about 60–300 euros per year” (Agora Verkehrswende 2018, p. 14). By allocating public road space, a public good is privatized or exposed to competition. The use of the space is only possible for a certain group. For the most part, low-income people cannot afford a car and are thus excluded from competing for the space. However, the normative narrative of the empowerment approach and merely identifying equity gaps in the design of mobility is not enough. The structures that create and perpetuate inequities must be identified, eliminated, or changed. In her reflections on the theory of justice, Iris Marion Young (2011) takes the approach of analyzing injustice. In order to arrive at an appropriate conception of justice, the structures of oppression need to be identified. In doing so, it is especially important to uncover the power structures that produce or manifest injustice. Young takes five forms of oppression as her starting point: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. By means of this categorization, Young attempts to show that the source of injustice is not located solely in the distribution of goods, but that, in essence, oppression and exploitation are perpetrated by social groups on social groups. One cause of injustice is the lack of recognition of specific lifestyles, cultures, and social groups. As Young sees it, the failure to recognize difference between social groups is one of the main drivers of injustice. She thus establishes a connection to models of recognition theory in social philosophy. A concrete political goal that can be derived from this is to establish a fundamental recognition of differences between social groups. For example, a racial gap, i.e., a gap based on ethnicity, can be identified in differentiating between social groups in the area of mobility. This is described by urban anthropologist Adonia Lugo (2018), who uses the example of bicycle culture in the USA. She shows, for instance, how the debate about the design of an appropriate infrastructure for bicycles is dominated by an academic middle class. Proletarian and migrant milieus are largely excluded when considering the design of sustainable local mobility. A gender-based difference is pointed out, for example, by mobility researchers Joachim Scheiner and Christian Holz-Rau (2017). Women get around differently to men (whose trips are mostly less complex) due to the combination of the purposes of their trips (trip chaining), e.g., dropping off and picking up children and rela-

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

79

tives, and shopping errands. For the requirements of women as a social group, the spatial design of public transport is inadequate, because the radial design of public transport means that the important sub-centers of a city are not adequately connected. In addition, in some cities and regions it is not possible to switch easily between different means of public transportation using the same ticket. The fact that this difference is not taken into account is doubtless due to the fact that transport planning and transport policy are dominated by men. We still have to wait for a female Federal Minister of Transport in Germany. In addition to the lack of and unequal access to the transport system, a further equity gap consists in the unequal social impact of external effects (air pollutants, noise, risk of traffic accidents) of transport processes (Rammler and Schwedes 2018). In the public discourse on designing mobility sustainably, the conception of environmental justice is placed in the foreground. Conceptually, environmental justice aims to “ensure that all people are affected by environmental pressures to a comparable – and preferably minimal – degree and also have equal access to environmental resources” (Gaffron 2016). Closely related to this conception of environmental justice is the notion of equity. Achieving social justice or environmental justice means achieving a state in which all members of society are socially equal or are not unequally exposed to, for example, certain harmful environmental emissions. Thus, unequal distribution of environmental burdens is considered unjust and offers concrete points of departure for developing measures to combat the problem, also on the part of transport planners. In addition to publications in transport research, which refer to the concept of environmental justice and are serving to establish environmental justice as a field in transport studies at the Technical University of Berlin, the efforts to describe or evaluate socio-spatial distributions of traffic-related noise and air pollutants are obviously ongoing (Becker 2016). While the concept of environmental justice focuses on currently observable environmental pressures, the concept of sustainability incorporates inter- and intragenerational justice (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). On the one hand, the empowerment approach is clearly in keeping with the goal of sustainable development, since the protagonists of the empowerment approach consider people to be capable of standing up for the values and interests of other people or generations (Max-Neef 1991; Nussbaum 2000). On the other hand, the concept of sustainability is centered on people’s needs, including those of future generations. This is perfectly compatible with the notion of opportunities for fulfilment and the freedoms associated with them (Alkire 2005; Rauschmayer et al. 2011).

80

S. Daubitz

5 Vision of Public Mobility Public mobility is often equated with the use of public transportation. The following quote from an interview shows that even public transportation is perceived as non-public: “I am also bothered by the term public transportation, since you are actually considered a criminal if you travel without a ticket,” is how a 40-year-old welfare recipient from Hamburg responds to the issue of public transportation in Hamburg. In an interview conducted as part of the “mobile inclusion” research project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), he continues: “All you have to do is buy a bicycle. It’s a means of public transportation that everyone can use. Everybody can ride it. Yeah, I would say. So there’s no charge for bikes.” Initially, this assessment makes one wonder, since normally underground rail, the bus and streetcars are seen as public and the bicycle would be described as a private means of transportation. But the interviewee is referring to experiences of being criminalized for ‘fare evasion’ and mentions the general financial barrier that prevents him from using public transport. For others who have to live on welfare, mini-jobs, etc., access to bicycles is sometimes not possible because they lack the money to buy a new bicycle or the necessary spare parts in order to repair a damaged one. In any case, it is probably mainly financial barriers to access that make public mobility seem non-public. The barriers mentioned or observed reveal inequitable opportunities for using transportation systems or unequal access to them. The empowerment approach conceptualizes freedom as requiring the presence of real opportunities in addition to the absence of barriers to access. Social structures that depend on the automobile limit choices and opportunities for fulfilment. Those who are not in a position to travel long commuting distances by automobile either cannot work or are less likely to get a decent job. Those who work two or three jobs and have only marginal jobs are forced to spend a lot on mobility without being able to afford to participate in society. Following the normative model of participation and the empowerment approach, there is an evident need to reorganize mobility and the transport system. Freedom from constraints must necessarily be coupled with providing opportunities to achieve life goals. A vision of public mobility could be an organization of mobility free from barriers to access and private property claims. As well as a mobility that not only brings people back together or socially closer, but that is designed by the citizens themselves. The development and planning of transport projects will be left not just to transport planners, but also determined by citizens, with their competencies and practical knowledge. In realizing this vision, the role of transport planners increasingly involves moderation, with the task of communicating technical information

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

81

in a comprehensible way and to make the planning and implementation process transparent (this includes documentation by means of which the decisions made can also be traced back). By thinking about the design of one’s own mobility and the organization of traffic in one’s own living environment, mobility is publicly negotiated. This goes beyond the transformation of planning and municipal policy actions in the direction of inter-sectoral, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work and planning structures (Schwedes and Rammert 2020). The aim is rather to enable comprehensive participation for all population groups. The end result could be the autonomous organization of a neighborhood and the mobility of its inhabitants by understanding and organizing the neighborhood and mobility as a common good (Brocchi 2017). Michael Wright et  al. (2007) distinguish between three steps on a ladder of participation: non-participation, the preliminary stages of participation, and full participation. Their ladder developed from the context of promoting health. As Wright his co-authors see it, participation also means “[…] sharing in decision-­ making processes (decision-making power). The more influence someone has on a decision-making process, the greater his or her participation” (Wright et al. 2009). The authors thus took up and developed further the work of Sherry R. Arnstein (1969), who in her critique of the rituals of “pseudo-participation’ in urban development processes considered a distinction between different levels of participation necessary. Informing citizens, seeking their opinion and maybe even drawing on their specific expertise and taking this into account in planning processes are merely preliminary stages of participation. It certainly provides cause for hope that qualitative interviews or methods such as community mapping will be used by transport planners, since participants can then exercise criticism and contribute ideas. However, there is no guarantee that participants’ ideas will be considered. The goal should be to relinquish decision-making authority or even decision-making power. If it seems unthinkable for political decision-makers or administrators to hand over decision-making power, it is also not easy to hand over competencies to citizens to make organizational and content-related decisions independently, since rules, regulations and planning law stand in the way. Since these regulations and so forth cannot be transformed quickly, it can be a useful addition to establish informal planning instruments. If the freedom to take on personal responsibility is not granted or is restricted, personal commitment diminishes and people who were active previously tend to bow out. Within the framework of the participatory research project “2Rad-1Kauf-­ 0Emission  – Radverkehr als Perspektive für den innerstädtischen Einzelhandel” (2Wheels-1Purchase-0Emissions – Cycling as a Perspective for Inner-City Retail),

82

S. Daubitz

funded by the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, retailers on Schönhauser Allee in Berlin-Pankow had similarly frustrating experiences. Some retailers expressed the will to improve the space at the base of street trees in front of their stores by adding plants and small seating areas – if they had not already done so. However, this turned out to be less than straightforward, since from the district’s point of view adding plants around the base of street trees is fraught with various conflicts (e.g. ensuring traffic safety). This became clear during the project when a retailer added plants to the space around a street tree (in consultation with a florist to meet the needs of the tree). But the plants were subsequently completely removed without notification by employees of the local green space authority. This led to a perceptible uncertainty about what was feasible and what was not, whereupon the motivation of the retailers to possibly get further involved finally dwindled completely. The moment people begin to appropriate public space, new processes of negotiation begin, which should be clarified as far as possible via direct personal communication. On the one hand, openness to experimentation in a political culture is a basic prerequisite for opening up free spaces; on the other hand, obligations or rules must be established that make social engagement a stable phenomenon in the first place. This must be jointly developed and agreed upon by all actors who are committed to their living environment or to the redesign of mobility. There are now a number of cooperative planning formats for this purpose (e.g., planning workshops, round tables, etc.).

6 Strategies for Participation-Oriented Mobility Planning A link between the development of citizens’ ideas and bringing these ideas to fruition can be established by mobility officers hired and financed by the municipality. As part of the vision of making mobility public and transparent, these newly created positions are an important point of contact between the professional-­ institutional perspective and local citizens. In some municipalities, these positions are increasingly being established and financed. However, the tasks of future mobility officers should not be reduced merely to the implementation of environmentally friendly transport projects with the expertise of a transport planner. Mobility officers should first and foremost enable and organize participation in the area of potential mobility and the real traffic situation. In concrete terms: mobility officers engage in outreach, they are proactive, on the road personally and try to get even hard-to-reach population groups interested in the field of mobility. A mobility

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

83

o­ fficer cannot do this alone, but should (where available) rely on a functioning social infrastructure. The professional social workers, social counselors, educators, neighborhood managers, etc., who work in neighborhood homes, social institutions, church communities and associations, form an important interface for establishing the connection to the professional-institutional planning perspective. Practically, it is about managing the needs of the population, together with planning and other specialized departments. Thus, the goal should be to address socio-structurally imbalanced participation (Meunier 2006) in the field of mobility policy. Together with migrants, low-income people, children and young people, single parents, physically or mentally impaired persons, as well as older people, formats must be developed to push back the dominance of mostly academically well-educated male citizens. This is not easy and will certainly not happen overnight. In order to implement appropriate concepts of mobility, oriented to and by the living environment, the hard-to-reach population groups must first be placed in a position to identify the causes of mobility-related problems in their everyday lives and to develop strategies for solutions themselves. This is where strategies, measures and methods that develop competencies and skills on an individual basis come in. Opening up personal spaces of opportunity through the empowerment approach has proven itself in social work and has given rise to many projects that start with the development of individual skills. Social work methods such as social counseling (passing on information), skills training as well as networking are now also being applied to specific projects whose main goal is to expand mobility skills. A project that shows migrant women how to ride a bicycle, for example, is offered by the project #BIKEGEES.2 The Berlin-based association #BIKEYGEES e. V. helps female migrants to become more mobile by training them to ride a bicycle – and thus creates the preconditions for participation in social and cultural life. The association is now a member of the Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband (Parity Welfare Organization) and has established itself as a contact point for women in Berlin. Women and girls with and without experience as refugees can take part in free cycling training, where instruction in various languages in the theoretical side of road use is offered in addition to practical cycling skills. The women also learn to maintain their bicycles themselves. Many of the former participants act as multipliers: They conduct training sessions on their own and pass on their knowledge directly. In Cologne, the peer education approach was also used to encourage senior citizens to use public transport. Selected subscribers to the Aktiv 60 Ticket of the  https://bikeygees.org/

2

84

S. Daubitz

Cologne public transport company (KVB) received a “Paten (godparent) Ticket” in addition to their standard ticket,3 which they were then able to donate to acquaintances and relatives in their age group (who previously did not travel by bus or train, or rarely did so). In a follow-up survey of participants in the campaign, 58% said they would now use public transportation more often, and 48% of those surveyed actually used public transportation. Another quantifiable result among the participants was the gain in competence in using public transport (e.g. being able to read timetables, improving orientation when changing trains, buying tickets, etc.). The gain in competence was particularly significant for the group of regular car users. Now, capacity building is not only important on the individual level, but also on the local level, where structures have to be established that allow for continuous exchange, development of competencies, etc. These structures can develop in very different ways and can indeed be very different. One promising possibility is the format of real labs (Wanner and Stelzer 2019), which is slowly establishing itself in the research landscape. In a real lab, social and sustainable structures and ways of life are to be tested. The approach is interesting because, ideally, different actors (from politics, administration, science, civil society) with their different cultures meet and are obliged to create common structures. In connection with the promotion of real labs, interesting measures usually emerge that are better accepted by the citizens or are even implemented by them. But how sustainable are these structures when the funding comes to an end? Can the measures developed then be maintained? For example, a constant fluctuation has been observed in the bicycle repair shops for low-income earners, which are usually operated under social sponsorship. As soon as the funding ceases, the service and the associated contact persons are no longer available (although the service was well received in the residential neighborhoods in question). A sustainable structure for such measures can only be created if continued funding can be guaranteed and/or stable, self-governing structures have developed. In the case of spatial changes, the expectations placed on stable structures are that much higher, since spatial circumstances are created that can only be dismantled with a certain amount of effort. The idea of ‘superblocks’, which is being introduced in Barcelona, aims to make urban neighborhoods car-free. The concept of the superblocks is an example of facilitating social processes that can be maintained over the course of the project’s duration by restricting or preventing access to residential neighborhoods for  https://www.mobilservice.ch/admin/data/files/news_section_file/file/2777/koelner-projektpatenticket.pdf?lm=1418801210 3

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

85

automobiles, and then designing the closed-off space with pedestrians and cyclists in mind. The concept of the superblock, which has been tested in the Poblenou district of Barcelona, is now to be tried out in Berlin. Transferring the superblock model is linked to the expectation that more social interaction will take place in the spaces now fully available to the public and that new ideas of social co-existence will thus emerge. The Barcelona experience is already showing positive results (López et al. 2020). The superblocks in Barcelona were designed by the residents themselves in a participatory process with the municipality to jointly define problems or challenges and find solutions together. In each district where the program was implemented, a steering group was established, consisting of a group of people and/or representative bodies to oversee the project. The group acted as a link between the professional-institutional side and the residents, approving the different phases of implementation as well as the results of the participation workshops and the technical initiatives to be carried out. The active and diverse civil society in Barcelona was a key actor in the implementation of the ‘superblocks’. Residents’ acceptance of the ‘superblocks’ continues to be very high and for local politicians it could well be significant that the municipal government of Barcelona (which supported the project) has been re-elected. The project of understanding and implementing mobility policy as participatory policy is also about adopting or establishing a cooperative lifestyle. Therefore, knowledge of rules and regulations is no longer enough for transport planners who want to design mobility in a public and participatory fashion. Instead, the future ‘toolbox’ on the professional-institutional side includes openness, flexibility as well as communicative competence (e.g. being skilled in techniques of moderation). Manipulating, hiding, distorting information, diverting attention away from important issues, and shifting the debate by exercising power or foregrounding the claim to expertise, on the other hand, do not allow for communication on equal terms (see Schneidemesser’s contribution in this volume). The work “The Communicative Turn in Planning” by Patsy Healey (1996, 2012) and “The Argumentative Turn in Public Policy” by Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis (2012) offer solid guidance on how communication can be successfully designed. The basis consists in finding a common communicative level and not to hurl insults at each other, which is often the case in convened citizens’ meetings, which merely create the impression of participation. The ability to be open means not hiding behind sets of rules, but rather weighing up new ideas from civil society and, if they are promising, implementing them. Openness also means being prepared to try out new methods or even to change methods (if they do not lead to the desired results). Verbal-argumentative methods (e.g., SWOT analyses) of documentation and strategy development that ­incorporate

86

S. Daubitz

qualitative data (interviews, image and film analyses, observations, etc.) are becoming increasingly important (Rammert et al. 2019). Giving up control and responsibility is often difficult, but necessary if participation is to succeed. Therefore, the ability to trust is definitely part of the ‘toolbox’ of planners and policy makers. In this vision of public mobility, a bottom-up strategy is preferred. This is the only way that new spatial structures that enable local mobility can be created locally. Improving the residential environment together with residents by making it a desirable place which to spend time, improving the chances of sourcing provisions locally, providing opportunities for recreation  - all this brings the most diverse groups of society together again. The perception or experience of being individually effective in achieving goals strengthens the structures of local civil society and makes a society more immune to undemocratic and neo-liberal solutions. Despite all this: In view of the need to implement a mobility turnaround as quickly as possible in the light of climate change, top-down strategies are now also required to achieve the goal. That a synthesis between both strategies can succeed has been proven  - for example, by the implementation of the Non-Smoker Protection Act in the context of health prevention, which has changed things significantly: For example, smoke-free restaurants have become completely self-­ evident, and many people today wonder how one ever endured restaurants and pubs with no restrictions on smoking in the first place. Enabling participation in the field of transportation policy also means countering existing obstructive power structures, and replacing them. The ban on the manufacture and purchase of internal combustion engines, abolishing commuting allowances, etc. are necessary measures to drive forward changes in the field of mobility. In parallel with these restrictive measures, access barriers to environmentally friendly means of transport must be removed. This includes, above all, affordable prices for the use of rail and public transport, the expansion above all of the rail and bus infrastructure in rural areas and an optimal, integrated coordination of the networks (frequent services), the expansion of a safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, to name just a few measures.

7 Conclusion The idea is increasingly gaining ground that designing mobility is linked to questions of equity. As a result, mobility policy automatically becomes a normative project that ideally aims to provide citizens with opportunities for fulfilment. Participation becomes the central yardstick for the success of inclusive mobility

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

87

p­ olicy. The prerequisite for leading a ‘good life’ is environmentally compatible, sustainable mobility. One of the consequences of emissions that are harmful to health and the environment is that individual fulfilment is made more difficult. To avoid this, fundamental decisions have to be made and certain tasks carried out. First, we must abandon the idea that mobility should be regulated by the market. Mobility is part of the public services. Secondly, it is also a question of empowering citizens to come to an understanding with one another about responsible mobility and to decide on it. Above all, it is social innovations that determine the success of inclusive mobility policy. Here, the existing sites of social infrastructure are becoming increasingly important (e.g., community centers, bicycle repair shops under social sponsorship, food banks, outreach by social workers, etc.). Wherever people meet in neighborhoods or in their residential environments, the transformation of mobility should, can and must be made an issue. Self-empowerment is thus at the forefront of the vision for inclusive mobility policy. With ‘real experiments’ or ‘real labs’, initial attempts can be made or initial structures can be created to bring different perspectives and actors together for the long-term. The empowerment approach of Sen and Nussbaum can serve as a basis to connect mobility policy to other policy fields. In social work and health policy, the empowerment approach has become established. But also new instruments in transport planning that have yet to be established permanently, such as municipal mobility reports that survey mobility in a participatory manner and develop strategies and measures with local actors, can illustrate structures of inclusive mobility policy. A mobility index could be developed, that transparently maps the local possibilities, could, for example, empower citizens to inform themselves about their local mobility options in comparison to other places. Self-empowerment is and has been at the forefront of all projects and measures intended to facilitate individual mobility. Concepts of peer education such as bicycle-­riding courses for migrants by migrants, or the Cologne public transport company’s “godparent tickets” for senior citizens, have proved to be successful individual projects. These projects must be established on a permanent basis and fluctuation due to lack of funding must be avoided. Evaluation of the projects in question should be standard practice. These individual empowerment projects are necessary, but one should always be clear about their scope. On their own, they cannot guarantee success for inclusive mobility policies, but are merely an important building block for a general political strategy to make mobility inclusive. Ultimately, an inclusive mobility policy must address and deal with the rights to spaces, to access, and goods. These are fundamental systemic choices, but they are unavoidable due to climate change and the environmental impacts of transport. Unfortunately, a bottom-up strategy is not sufficient here, since it takes a long time

88

S. Daubitz

to establish this in a sustainable way. Time is pressing for facilitating local mobility, and making public mobility available in rural and urban areas at affordable prices. Politicians often describe the process as akin to “drilling through thick planks”, meaning arduous and time-consuming. In mobility policy, it is more a case of having to drill through thick concrete. This is certainly the dilemma facing people committed to designing the required mobility policy, since the mobility turnaround is happening too late or much too slowly to make climate change and fundamental environmental damage reversible. The implementation of inclusive mobility policy is thus by no means conflict-­ free, since the struggle for an ideal transport system is strongly influenced by very different ideas of mobility (automotive culture versus post-fossil mobility culture) within a society (see Hoor’s contribution in this volume). Accompanying a consistent top-down strategy for an inclusive and ecological mobility policy, forums and spaces have to be set up in which different mobility milieus meet. The unequal resources, interests and mentalities of the actors involved must be made visible in order to avoid moralization and to be able to conduct a discourse on diverging ideas of justice in mobility. In the interaction of a top-down strategy and the development of dispersed, local social structures that enable people to co-organize their mobility responsibly, inclusive mobility policy can have an enduring future. Using the example of cycling proposed by Jean-Michel Bonvin, we have seen that the abundance of opportunities in the field of mobility depends on the actual accessibility or availability, the personal conversion factors (i.e. abilities to use mobility services) and the societal transformation factors (the constitution of the transport system). Thus, a dominant automotive mobility culture is a determining factor for public mobility to appear as unacceptable. In terms of sustainable development, the goal would be to increase the realization opportunities for sustainable mobility. If people are capable of behaving sustainably, the real freedom to do so should be created. Since in view of the climate change and the fundamental ecological endangerment of the planet earth in fact generally the realization chances of the coming generations on a good life are questioned, nothing else remains than to go on the path of the sustainable social development.

References Agora Verkehrswende. 2018. Öffentlicher Raum ist mehr wert: Ein Rechtsgutachten zu den Handlungsspielräumen in Kommunen. https://www.agora-­verkehrswende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2018/OEffentlicher_Raum_ist_mehr_wert/Agora_Verkehrswende_ Rechtsgutachten_oeffentlicher_Raum.pdf.

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

89

Alkire, Sabrina. 2005. Needs and Capabilities. In: Reader, S. (Hrsg.): The Philosophy of Needs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S. 229–251. Altenburg, Sven, P. Gaffron; und C. Gertz. 2009. Teilhabe zu ermöglichen bedeutet Mobilität zu ermöglichen. Diskussionspapier des Arbeitskreises Innovative Verkehrspolitik der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Bonn: Hrsg. v. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (Wiso-Diskurs. Expertisen und Dokumentationen zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik). https://library.fes. de/pdf-­files/wiso/06482.pdf. Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4), 216–224. Bartelheimer, Peter. 2007. Politik der Teilhabe. Ein soziologischer Beipackzettel. Bonn: Hrsg. v. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Forum Berlin. Berlin (Fachforum: Analysen & Kommentare, 1). https://library.fes.de/pdf-­files/do/04655.pdf. Becker, Thilo. 2016. Sozialräumliche Verteilung von verkehrsbedingtem Lärm und Luftschadstoffen am Beispiel von Berlin. Dresden: https://d-­nb.info/1102086495/34. Bonvin, Jean-Michel. 2006. Employment and Labour Market Regulation: A Capability Approach. In: Berichterstattung zur sozioökonomischen Entwicklung Deutschlands  – Werkstattbericht Zweiter Bericht, Zwischenbericht Teil I.  Göttingen: https://sofi.uni-­ goettingen.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Zwischenbericht_Teil1_2006.pdf Brocchi, Davide. 2017. Urbane Transformation. Zum guten Leben in der eigenen Stadt. Bad Homburg: VAS. Bundesregierung, Hrsg. 2005. Lebenslagen in Deutschland: Der 2. Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung. Berichtsband. Berlin: https://www.armuts-­und-­ reichtumsbericht.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Berichte/lebenslagen-­deutschland-­zweiter-­ armuts-­reichtumsbericht.pdf. Cohen, Gerald A. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Destatis Statistische Bundesamt 2018. Zahl der Woche Preise rund ums Auto seit 2000 um 36 % gestiegen, https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/Zahl-­der-­ Woche/2018/PD18_38_p002.html. Delbosc, Alexa. 2012. ‘The role of well-being in transport policy’. Transport Policy 23, 25–33. Fischer, Frank und H.  Gottweis. 2012. The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice. Durham, NC. Gaffron, Philine. 2016. ‘Umweltgerechtigkeit und Stadtverkehr  – Leitbild, Diagnosen und Handlungsoptionen’. In Handbuch der kommunalen Verkehrsplanung: Strategien, Konzepte, Maßnahmen für eine integrierte und nachhaltige Mobilität. Hrsg. Tilman Bracher, K.  Dziekan, J.  Gies, F.  Huber, F.  Kiepe, U.  Reutter, K.  Saary, O.  Schwedes. Berlin, Bonn: Wichmann; Economica-Verlag. Glasze, Georg. 2002. Wohnen hinter Zäunen – bewachte Wohnkomplexe als Herausforderung für die Stadtplanung. In Jahrbuch StadtRegion 2002. Hrsg. Norbert Gestring, H. Glasauer, C. Hannemann, W. Petrowsky und J. Pohlan. Opladen: Leske und Budrich. Healey, Patsy. 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23 (2), 217–234.

90

S. Daubitz

Healey, Patsy. 2012. Performing place governance collaboratively: Planning as a communicative process. In: The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Hrsg. Frank Fischer und H. Gottweis, H. Durham NC: 58–82. Hradil, Stefan und J. Schiener. 2001. Soziale Ungleichheit in Deutschland. Opladen: 8. Aufl. Leske + Budrich (Uni-Taschenbücher, 1809). López, Iván, J. Ortega, und M. Pardo. 2020. Mobility Infrastructures in Cities and Climate Change. An Analysis Through the Superblocks in Barcelona. Atmosphere 11 (4), S. 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11040410. Lucas, Karen. 2012. “Transport and Social Exclusion: Where Are We Now?” Transport Policy 20 (März): 105–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013. Lugo, Adonia E. (2018): Bicycle/race: Transportation, culture, & resistance, Microcosm Publishing, Portland, Oregon. Meunier, Corinne. 2006. Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in der Bauleitplanung: Bedeutung der Aarhus-Konvention und der ihrer Umsetzung dienenden EU-Richtlinien  – Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in Berlin-Brandenburg im Praxistest  – Arbeitshilfe für die Praxis. Dortmund: UVP spezial 20. Neef, Max. 1991. Human Scale Development: conception, application and further reflections. New York: The Apex Press. Nobis, Claudia und T. Kuhnimhof. 2018. Mobilität in Deutschland: MiD Ergebnisbericht, Bonn: https://www.mobilitaet-­in-­deutschland.de/publikationen2017.html. Nussbaum, Martha C., H. Pauer-Studer, Herlinde und I. Utz, Ilse, Hrsg. 2014. Gerechtigkeit oder Das gute Leben. Frankfurt am Main: Dt. Erstausg., 8. Aufl. Suhrkamp. Nussbaum, Martha C. 2000. Woman and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rammert, Alexander, S. Daubitz, O. Schwedes. 2019. Entwicklung von Mobilitätsstrategien auf Basis qualitativer Daten. Internationales Verkehrswesen. 4|2019. Rammler, Stephan und O.  Schwedes. 2018. Mobilität für alle! Gedanken zur Gerechtigkeitslücke in der Mobilitätspolitik. Hrsg. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Forum Berlin. Berlin: https://library.fes.de/pdf-­files/dialog/14779.pdf. Rauschmayer, Felix; I. Omann und J. Frühmann. 2011. Needs, capabilities, and quality of life. Re-focusing Sustainable Development. In Sustainable Development: Capabilities, Needs, and Well-Being. Hrsg. Rauschmayer, Felix; I. Omann und J. Frühmann London, Routledge. S. 1–24. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Samuels, Jane, Hrsg. 2005. Removing unfreedoms: citizens as agents of change in urban development. London: ITDG Publ. Scheiner, Joachim und C. Holz-Rau. 2017. ‘Women’s complex daily lives: A gendered look at trip chaining and activity pattern entropy in Germany’. Transportation 44(1), 117–138. Schwedes, Oliver und S.  Daubitz. 2011. Hausanschluss Mobilität. Erfahrungen und Potenziale von Erreichbarkeitsplanung. Hrsg. Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband. Berlin: https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/downloads/Hausanschluss_Mobilitaet_ vzbv_2012.pdf.

4  Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics

91

Schwedes, Oliver, S.  Daubitz, A.  Rammert, B.  Sternkopf und M.  Hoor. 2018. DP1–2_ Kleiner_Begriffskanon. Berlin: https://www.ivp.tu-­berlin.de/fileadmin/fg93/Dokumente/ Discussion_Paper/DP1-­2_Schwedes_et_al.pdf. Schwedes, Oliver und A.  Rammert. 2020. DP 15 Was ist Integrierte Verkehrsplanung? Hintergründe und Perspektiven einer am Menschen orientierten Planung. Berlin: https://www.ivp.tu-­b erlin.de/fileadmin/fg93/Dokumente/Discussion_Paper/DP15_ SchwedesRammert.pdf. Sen, Amartya. 2012. Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit. München: Dt. Taschenbuch-Verl. (dtv, 34719). Vella-Brodrick, Dianne und J. Stanley 2013. ‘The significance of transport mobility in predicting well-being’, Transport Policy 29, 236–242. Wanner, Matthias und F. Stelzer. 2019. Reallabore – Perspektiven für ein Forschungsformat im Aufwind. in brief – Wuppertaler Impulse zur Nachhaltigkeit (07/2019) https://epub. wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/7360/file/7360_Reallabore.pdf. Wehrheim, Jan. 2002. Raumkontrolle: von sozialer Ausgrenzung zu räumlichen Ausschluss und vice versa. Widersprüche, Jg. 22 (2002), Heft 86, S. 21–37. World Commission on Environment and Development, Hrsg. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.un-­documents.net/wced-­ocf.htm. Wright, Michael T., Block, Martina, von Unger, Hella 2007. Stufen der Partizipation in der Gesundheitsförderung. In: Gesundheit Berlin (Hrsg.): Dokumentation 13. Bundesweiter Kongress Armut und Gesundheit, Berlin. Wright, Michael T., M. Block, H. von Unger, H. Kilian, S. Brandes und M. Ziesemer. 2009. Erfahrung nutzen – Wissen vertiefen – Praxis verbessern: Partizipative Entwicklung der Qualitätssicherung und Evaluation in der Gesundheitsförderung bei sozial Benachteiligten. Abschlussbericht. Hrsg. Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) und Gesundheit Berlin-Brandenburg e. V. https://docplayer.org/17340858-­Erfahrung-­nutzen-­ wissen-­vertiefen-­praxis-­verbessern.html. Young, Iris Marion. 2011. Justice and the Politics of Difference Princeton.

Part II Current Developments in Public Mobility: New Development Paths to a Human-­Centered Transport System

5

Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions and Perspectives for Design Christina Wolking

5.1 Introduction The mobility sector is undergoing a process of comprehensive transformation. Societal trends, such as urbanization, individualization, demographic change and digitalization, are opening up new opportunities, but are also leading to further and diverse demands on the mobility system. Changed conditions on the superordinate level are triggering changes in mobility behavior, in the supply of mobility, but also in the guiding principles and strategies of government bodies. The debate about a transport turnaround highlights the need for changes in the transport system. Due to an ongoing high level of greenhouse gas emissions in Germany, the transport sector, as the second largest emitter just behind the energy industry, is crucial and plays a major role in the fight against climate change. By 2050, emissions are supposed to be nearly completely reduced to zero; by 2030, the goal is to reduce emissions by 40% to 42% compared to 1990 levels (BMU 2016, p.  7; Agora Verkehrswende 2017, p. 7). The great importance of individual mobility is confronted with the negative effects of high traffic volume. The former determines quality of life and the degree of social participation; as a public service, individual mobility must be ensured by the state for everyone (see the contribution by Schwedes and Ringwald in this volume). In order to combine the two goals of reducing the negative effects of traffic

C. Wolking (*) Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_5

95

96

  C. Wolking

and ensuring mobility for all, it is necessary to focus on supporting user-oriented mobility and reducing traffic (Becker 2001, p. 4). Key elements of promoting environmentally compatible and socially just mobility are the environmentally-friendly means of transport recommended by the environmental alliance, the backbone of which is public transport, which plays a key role in creating a more sustainable transport system. It is often contrasted with the private car and presented as an environmentally-friendly alternative, with the aim of decarbonizing transport and reducing the negative effects of a car-­dominated mobility culture (Dziekan and Zistel 2018, p. 361). One of the guiding principles of integrated transport planning is to approach planning in a holistic and systemic way, with the focus on promoting sustainable transport development as well as ensuring social participation. Design dimensions include the areas of infrastructure, the transport process and mobility. As mentioned in the introduction, strategies and measures need to be conceptualized taking into account the normative demands of different actors in a cooperative and transparent planning process, independent of political, technical and spatial boundaries (Schwedes and Rammert 2020, p. 24; Schwedes et al. 2018, p. 4). While the emotions of transport users are often neglected in transport planning and decisions are based on objectively measurable factors, integrated transport planning includes the influence of subjective perceptions on mobility behavior. In order to successfully transform the transportation system, it is not enough to focus on the manifest objective factors: it is essential to consider social circumstances as well, and to understand the motives of mobility behavior. In this anthology, public mobility is discussed as a convergence of, and a compromise between, individual automobility and public transport. The question of what exactly public mobility means, what it encompasses, how it can be shaped, what challenges arise and which actors are important, once again comes into focus, since the changes in mobility open up a so-called ‘window of opportunity’ which can foster the transport turnaround. The approach ‘using instead of owning’ and ‘mobility as a service’, as well as shared mobility, are discussed as an alternative for private car ownership, and especially by providers are seen as offering the potential to break the dependence on owning a private car. While it is true that car-­ sharing has documented positive effects on reducing car ownership, many studies focus on people who are already customers, which thus can lead to distorted results. In light of this situation, researchers emphasize the necessity to integrate the services into a holistic approach to planning (Giesel and Nobis 2016, p. 223; Zhou et al. 2020, p. 338). The emergence of ‘new mobility services’, which are positioned in an area between collective transport and individual transport as well as public and private

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

97

transport, is predominantly taking place in urban areas. These services, which are principally driven by the private economic sector, are associated with new business models and are provided by players from the automotive industry or IT sector, amongst others. Depending on the type of service on offer, they are seen as an opportunity or a risk for the transport turnaround and sustainable mobility (Karlsson et al. 2020, p. 286). The services are also often in a pilot phase and, in legal terms, situated on new terrain, which means that – regardless of their potential – they are available for a limited period of time, but also restricted to certain places. In the current context, integrated holistic planning has so far proved difficult. Changing mobility behavior and integrating the use of these mobility services into existing everyday routines are only possible with adequate availability and reliable access. With this in mind, the analysis of the interests of different players is also crucial for designing future public mobility, especially since a complex conflict of priorities seems to be emerging between transport policy goals, economic interests and the individual needs of transport users. For example, goals such as reducing road traffic and promoting sustainable and demand-responsive mobility are juxtaposed with, among other things, profit-orientation and the goal of generating high-­revenue traffic (Docherty et  al. 2018, p.  119). In order to ensure an orientation towards transport and urban planning goals, management and coordination of public mobility services by municipalities is essential (Hausigke and Kruse in this volume). In what follows, the deficits of the opposing systems of public transport and private transport will be highlighted. Based on this, the contextual conditions and elements of changed mobility as well as the potentials and risks of new mobility services will be explained. Lastly, in the interests of a future public mobility, the perspectives for designing new mobility services will be presented.

5.2 The Need to Reform Public Transport In accordance with the Regionalization Act (RegG), mobility as a public service currently largely means local public transport. Its goal is to offer a basic form of mobility at prices that are acceptable for the market (Institut für Mobilitätsforschung 2006, p.  40). The objective of public transport in Germany is to ensure that the population is adequately served with transport services (RegG§1(1)). In addition, public transport is defined as “generally accessible transport of persons by means of regular services [that] are predominantly intended to satisfy the demand for transport in urban, suburban or regional areas” (RegG §2). As collective transport, public transport stands for the local and temporal combining of journeys and is also timetable- and stop-bound (Dziekan and Zistel 2018, p. 348). In order to gain ac-

98

  C. Wolking

cess to the service users usually need to pay a fee, which can be charged according to distance, time, or type of service. Public transport is provided by public transport authorities at the provincial level (municipalities and counties). The final design and organization of public transport is specified in local transport plans – based on the federal Public Transport Act and the public transport laws of the states (Karl 2014, pp. 89, 94; Harman et al. 2012, p. 287). On the level of the European Union, DIN EN 13816 defines categories that can be used to assess the quality of public transport. Accordingly, the quality is measured in terms of accessibility, service, connections, equipment, service and the environment. The standard does not define any quality levels, but instead calls upon the contracting authorities and suppliers to specify their own standards in the respective areas. It is also pointed out that not enough resources are available to bring about behavioral changes in the choice of means of transport solely through pull measures and increasing the attractiveness of public transport (König 2007). In view of current developments, the concept of public services and the self-­ image of public transport are increasingly being criticized socially and politically, as well as by researchers. The criticism is directed at the minimalist principle of public transport, as expressed in the terms ‘basic service’ and ‘adequate service’, as well as the aspiration ‘to satisfy the demand for transport’. The great importance assigned to public transport as an attractive and environmentally friendly alternative to private transport is not reflected in the options for its configuration. Particularly worthy of criticism is the view of customers as ‘cases to be transported’, a designation that reflects the frequently discussed lack of user-orientation. On this view, traditional public transport cannot meet the demand for individual mobility, even according to its own definition (Karl 2008, p. 12; Schwedes 2014a, p. 17). Designing a public transport system that meets the requirements and needs of users and guarantees socially equitable access is a major challenge for providers. Planning takes place many years in advance and is based on traffic forecasts, so that responsive action and rapid adjustments are only possible to a limited extent. While urban public transport use is increasing and capacity is limited, the cost of a high-capacity public transport system increases as settlement density decreases, often raising doubts about the economic viability of scheduled service in outlying areas (Deffner et al. 2014, p. 226). Doubts are also expressed as to whether public transport can cope with the envisaged potential increase in the number of users, due to a lack of capacity and a low level of adaptability. One explanation for the low level of flexibility is the state regulation at an early stage, which placed restrictions on the design and diversification of forms of service and focused on rail transport, which is less flexible than bus transport. The scope for product innovation and new

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

99

service concepts is limited because the public transport system is heavily bound by outdated regulations and laws. Accordingly, there is a need to review existing laws and to expand them in such a way that they do justice to the changed circumstances (e.g., car-sharing law or the Berlin Mobility Act) (Karl 2008, p.  23 f.; Karlsson et al. 2020, p. 292). Different aspects are criticized by (potential) users, depending on the respective frame of reference, resulting in a diminished attractiveness. Whereas flexibility is restricted in outlying urban areas by rigid routes, fixed timetables and low frequencies in off-peak hours, in city centers high levels of utilization and crowded vehicles place a strain on users, especially at peak times. From the user’s perspective, this form of transportation is incompatible with the need for autonomy and self-­ determination, with encroachments on one’s private sphere when buses and trains are at full capacity considered unpleasant (Meyer 2014, p. 172). Further obstacles to using public transport include the so-called first and last mile (subjectively perceived), time disadvantages, the need for frequent transfers, and inadequate information regarding availability and access. These motivations are intensified when one’s private car is immediately available (Karl 2008, p. 22). It should be emphasized that users criticize accessibility, use, connections, equipment and service. Based on these shortcomings in public transport, the question needs to be asked whether public transport can live up to its role as a bearer of hope on the path to sustainable mobility. Does public transport – as the backbone of environmentally-­ friendly transport – represent a realistic basis for an alternative to motorized individual transport? For only by means of innovative and competitive services that are attractive from a users’ point of view can transport be designed sustainably and lead to a “decoupling from forced automobility” (Deffner et al. 2014, p. 204).

5.3 The Dominance of Automobility The reasons for the continued dominance of the private car are complex. In principle, a distinction must be made between regions where there are no or hardly any alternatives to the private car and those in which the private car plays a decisive role despite - objectively considered – numerous other mobility options. In addition to individual circumstances and personal preferences, mobility is also influenced by the superordinate context such as spatial structure, society and culture. Social developments and political decisions in the past led to a so-called ‘path dependency’, so that the German ‘car culture’ and the strong affinity for the private car have also evolved historically (Canzler 2012, p. 317). With mass motorization in the 1950s, which made it affordable for a large part of the population to buy their own car,

100

  C. Wolking

public transport took a back seat, since motorized individual transport (MIT) was able to meet mobility needs independently of services offered by the state. The private car seemed to be the optimal solution, for a fast, flexible and comfortable way to get from door to door, and thus has fundamentally changed mobility, ­transport, but also space and the environment since it was invented (Rammler 2014, p. 41; Pavone 2015, p. 400). With the newly-acquired and flexible possibilities of moving around thanks to the car, covering long distances no longer posed a problem, so that new living spaces were opened up. This was followed by processes of suburbanization, urban sprawl and the expansion of residential areas. In these regions, an alternative to the private car rarely existed, was difficult to implement, or was not taken into account in the course of planning. As a result, the dependence on the private car increased even further. Other causes and developments that continue to condition the ‘German car culture’ to this day are – to name just a few examples – the increasing division of labor, the close connections between the automotive industry and German politicians, and the paradigm of the automobile as a German status symbol (Kutter 2016, p. 212; Schade and Schlag 2007, p. 27; Menzl 2013, p. 62). With the expansion of settlement areas, the number and length of necessary journeys also increased, since working, living, shopping, and leisure activities were not possible in the same place. Accordingly, transportation is still considered a basic prerequisite for meeting certain needs today, so access to transportation cannot be neglected in the short or medium term and alternatives must be encouraged and established. The mobility services on offer vary depending on the respective place, settlement structure, physical conditions, the economic as well as social circumstances (Kutter 2016, p. 212). If alternatives to the private car are available, in addition to the simple availability of the means of transport in question, on an individual level the subjective perception of, and feelings toward, the mobility services on offer also play a role. Accordingly, mobility behavior and ultimately also the choice of means of transport can differ due to personal attitudes, guiding principles and norms, as well as abilities and habits, despite identical objective requisites (Schwedes et  al. 2018, p. 5; Gertz 2013, p. 42). Factors such as time, independence, convenience, and the reason for the journey have been identified as those with the greatest influence on mobility behavior (Rölle 2005, p. 52; Kagermeier 2011, p. 737). The complex activity patterns of today’s society require a high degree of flexibility. In the frequent comparison of individual and collective transport, individual transport is preferred, among other things due to time-based and spatial independence (Schneider 2018, p. 13; Fraedrich and Lenz 2015, p. 690). When a car is available, alternative modes of transport are mostly ruled out and more frequent

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

101

trips than originally planned and necessary are completed by car, as described by Canzler (2016, p. 111), referring to the mechanism of the ‘mental car’. When the moment arrives, the clear advantages of using one’s own car are in the foreground, the resulting adverse effects on a social level are externalized, even if not ­consciously. Even when alternatives to the automobile are available, behavioral changes represent a major challenge for planning, since in the overwhelming majority of cases there is a gap or contradiction between what people know and how they actually behave. In this context, we also talk about strategies to reduce cognitive dissonance (Canzler 2016, p. 111; Schade and Schlag 2007, p. 28 f.). The aspects described above constitute a dilemma for transport planning. The advantages and disadvantages of the opposing transport systems of public transport and motorized individual transport are diametrically opposed to each other on different levels, resulting in a kind of competition between public welfare-oriented interests on the one hand and individual interests on the other. In light of the previously outlined shortcomings of public transport, the growing individual mobility needs, and the negative effects of the dominant individual motorized transport, the frequently called-for reform of public transport is certainly justified, but so too is the need to rethink the transport system as a whole and to integrate the advantages of the two systems (Schwedes 2014a, p. 21). With the guiding principle of integrated transport planning as well as the approach of promoting multimodal mobility behavior, an integration of the different modes of transport and flexible use is already on the agenda. It is also clear that the needs of the users must play a decisive role in designing the system; on the one hand, with regard to an orientation to people’s specific requirements, and on the other hand, by influencing mobility behavior in the direction of strategic mobility management. The understanding and perception that public transport stands exclusively for collective transport and that motorized individual transport provides individual, flexible mobility must therefore be done away with. The task at hand is to fashion a transformation from competing systems to cooperating systems. In this process, the state and the private economic sector are central players and embody different interests. Decisive for future developments is the creation of favorable contextual conditions at different levels and the necessary regulatory control on the part of government. For example, public transport must be further developed in a way conducive to public mobility. It is essential to ensure social participation for all, taking into account the social, ecological and economic aspects of sustainable transport development.

102

  C. Wolking

5.4 Public Mobility New mobility, future-oriented mobility, innovative or connected mobility – there is a long list of terms associated with transformation in the transport sector, all aspiring to provide a solution to the previously-mentioned shortcomings. The term ‘public mobility’ is also being used more and more frequently. Nevertheless, its use has not yet become established in academic and social discourse. So far, we lack a clear definition of the term. Often, as in the differentiation between transport and mobility, no clear and deliberate boundary is drawn. Rather, adjectives such as “demand-oriented public mobility”, “individual public mobility” or “sustainable public mobility” are used in order to make clear what is meant by public mobility or to bring out its intended normative goal, (e.g., VDV 2019; ADAC e. V. 2020; Trapeze Switzerland Ltd. 2020).

5.4.1 Between Transport and Mobility In order to better distinguish public mobility from public transport and as a basis for differentiating between mobility services and transport services, it is necessary to take a look at the definitions of mobility and transport and to explain the underlying understanding. This needs to be done mainly due the fact that different definitions are used in research and politics and that there is often no clear differentiation in their use (Schwedes et al. 2018, p. 5). Transport is defined as “moving people, goods, and messages from one place to another” and in this sense can be understood as a process that involves physical movement (Nuhn and Hesse 2006, p. 18). Furthermore, in the context of integrated transport planning, transport is also understood as an overall system that results from the infrastructure, the transport process, and people’s mobility behavior (Schwedes et al. 2018, p. 6). The conceptual definitions of mobility vary between different academic disciplines. Even within the field of transport and mobility studies, one finds different approaches to defining the key term – for instance, “mobility as movement” or “mobility as the option and ability to be mobile” (Gerike 2006, p. 22). In the present chapter, I refer to the definition proposed by Schwedes et al. (2018), where mobility is defined as “the subjective expression of the possibilities of moving from place to place [which result from] the spatial, physical, economic, and social contextual conditions and their subjective perception” (ibid., p. 5). This definition emphasizes that the various means of transport in their objective form are perceived through a subjective filter. Thus, the quality and the design of the services on offer have an influence, but

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

103

so too do the personal attitudes, abilities and values of individuals. In addition to the unvarying contextual conditions, other variable aspects, such as the motive for movement, the goal of the change of location and its timing, also have a considerable influence on the choice of means of transport. Mobility behavior is thus the result of a complex system that involves correlating factors of a subjective and objective nature (see the contribution by Rammert in the present volume). While transport refers to the system as a whole and implies a supply-oriented perspective (where the focus is on infrastructure and the means of transport), mobility refers to the needs of individuals. The concepts also differ in terms of the emotions they evoke. For a long time, transport was seen as a positive phenomenon, indicating prosperity and growth, but being confronted with changing conditions, such as climate change and increased environmental awareness, there is now talk of a paradigm shift. Transport is now associated with its negative impacts, while mobility as the opportunity to move around is positively connoted (Gegner and Schwedes 2014, p. 67). Public transport is also connoted negatively, which can be attributed not least to its image and the previously described shortcomings from the user’s point of view. Public transport is associated with heteronomy, and users are referred to as ‘captives’, whereas ‘automobility’ implies autonomy and flexibility (Gegner and Schwedes 2014, p.  67). When one considers the definitions of mobility and transport, as well as the much-discussed reform of local public transport, the need for a new conceptual understanding of the field becomes immediately apparent.

5.4.2 The Meaning of Public and Private In light of the goal of ensuring public mobility and thus the assumed convergence of public transport and private transport, what follows is an examination of the meanings of ‘public’ and ‘private’. Public by definition means ‘generally accessible’. This understanding also underlies the ‘public’ in public transport (Dudenredaktion 2020). General accessibility can be related to two levels: on the one hand to the spatial level, which indexes availability, and on the other hand to the social level, which refers to usability (Hoffjann and Arlt 2015, p. 7 f.). In a broader sense, this means that transport services and infrastructure provided by the public sector must be accessible, available, and usable by the general public  – i.e., by people with different requirements. Usability and availability further imply the possibilities, the options and potential that ‘public’ implies. This means that public access must be inclusive and go hand in hand with freedom of choice. A distinction also has to be made between free and

104

  C. Wolking

gratis, which are not synonymous. Something can be public at the same time and still have limitations through, for example, payment mechanisms. In the case of public use, costs are compensated per unit (e.g. number, time, distance). The “public” can be contrasted with the “private” or the “exclusive” (Habermas 1991, p. 55). In contrast to the generally accessible, access to the private is limited to a specific person or a group of persons. By means of a legal boundary and/or a physical barrier, other people are excluded. In light of this, it is important to emphasize once again the aspiration of public mobility, which aims to enable social participation in the form of mobility for all. Accordingly, barrier-free design is accorded a special role. The spatial and social levels have already been mentioned as key dimensions of the public sphere. A material dimension can also be added, referring to objects, as well as a medial dimension, which concerns information and messages. When it comes to objects – in this context, the means of transportation – a distinction is made in the context of the private sphere between possession and ownership. Private ownership entails, according to the German Civil Code § 903 (“powers of the owner”), complete control over a good, so that the owner can deal with the object as he/she pleases. Possession implies, according to German Civil Code § 854, the temporary dominion over an object, where rental objects or borrowed objects are also referred to as possession. Possession and ownership describe the relationship between the good and the consumer, which is why the use of a vehicle does not in itself exclude possession. Accordingly, the expression ‘using instead of owning’ in the context of the sharing economy does not clearly express the state of affairs and is criticized as semantically fuzzy. For example, Schlag and Rößger (2019, p. 11) argue that the following formulation is an adequate alternative: ‘temporarily owning and sharing instead of permanently and exclusively taking possession of’. Since public means ‘generally accessible’, shared or communal use is primarily associated with it. In the context of traditional public transport, this is associated with collective use. However, in order to live up to the claim of being ‘public’, shared use does not necessarily have to be simultaneous, i.e. collective. Shared use can also mean temporary access to ownership. From a purely legal perspective, however, so-called ‘ownerless use’, which describes temporary ownership, falls into the realm of the private (e.g. in the case of sharing services). When considering actors, it must also be considered that here, too, the public sphere contrasts with the private sphere. Public actors include the public sector, represented by public servants such as politicians and administrators. Private actors are embodied by economic institutions and civil society organizations. This shows that, in practice, the boundaries between private and public spheres are becoming blurred as a result of

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

105

the increasing flexibility and diversification of transport services and providers, and that a clear demarcation between private and public is proving difficult. For example, a service may be generally accessible but still involve private/individual use. Moreover, a generally accessible public transport service does not rule out the possibility of it being offered by private providers. Given this situation, one can again point to the need to follow a clear, normative conception of public mobility and to specify requirements for the design of the new mobility services. From the perspective of the providers, sharing can be explained by two different motivations. On the one hand, sharing can fulfill a socially normative function and be a pro-social act designed to serve the common good. On the other hand, sharing can be a use-strategy that focuses, among other things, on self-sufficiency and defines goals along cost-benefit lines (Schlag and Rößger 2019, p. 11). While costs for the public, as mentioned earlier, are incurred per unit and thus constitute a service, in the case of private ownership, the entire cost of the purchase price must be borne once (‘pay per use’ versus ‘pay and use’). The media side of ‘public’ includes access to, and accessibility of, information and news. In terms of public mobility, this means that information on mobility options must be accessible and understandable to all. Particularly with regard to the new mobility services, this means that, in order to do live up to the claim of public mobility, information and access should not be provided exclusively via the digital platforms of private operators. So here, too, it is important to provide information in line with people’s needs.

5.5 The Contextual Conditions for Changes in Mobility and Transport The attempt to replace the automobile as the dominant regime has a long history. Over the past 20 years, transport policy has repeatedly focused on the search for alternatives or a convergence of private and public transport. While the focus has been on technical progress and increased efficiency, the current understanding of planning is that changes are equally necessary on the supply and demand side. Accordingly, there is a need not only for further development of the physical and technical infrastructure, but also for a change in terms of mobility culture, mobility behavior, and the actions of other actors involved (Lyons 2012, p. 30). Processes of transformation can be triggered by so-called ‘drivers’, which can be societal trends, technical developments, but also political measures (Arnold et  al. 2018, p.  52). There are a number of such developments currently taking place and they are re-

106

  C. Wolking

sponsible for the dynamic change in the mobility sector. However, the nature of the developments differs, depending on the respective space and place. The transformation that is frequently described mostly involves the urban context. At the societal level, the decisive factor for public mobility is the trend towards individualization, which goes hand in hand with increasing choices and ­opportunities. The freedoms that have emerged have led to differentiations in private lifestyles and the world of work, and ultimately to a pluralization of lifestyles. In the world of work, traditional employment relations are on the decline, so that working conditions and hours can no longer be standardized. In the private sphere, there are also fewer marriages, a decline in the number of births and correspondingly smaller household sizes. Along with the expansion of settlement areas, the complexity of everyday life is increasing and, due to the spatial dispersal of the pertinent facilities, this leads to highly differentiated spaces of activity (Rammler and Sauter-­Servaes 2013, p. 25; Schneider 2018, p. 30 f.). Other effects associated with individualization that are worth mentioning are the declining importance of the private car among sections of the younger generation, a growing environmental awareness, and an increased need for flexibility (Gouthier and Nennstiel 2018, p. 574). Accordingly, mobility requirements are highly diverse and vary depending on personal circumstances. Particularly in cities with a well-developed public transport system, it is apparent how important public transport can be. It is therefore all the more important to change the image of public transport as a less flexible ‘means of mass transport’ and to improve flexible, demand-oriented and individual mobility, by designing public mobility accordingly. The pressure for transformation, derived from changing needs and demands, can also be referred to as “demand-pull” (Schnieder and Gebhardt 2016, p. 2). On the other hand, on the supply side, technical progress and digitalization offer opportunities for redesigning (public) mobility and making it more flexible. Thus, a factor actively driving the transformation is the so-called “technology push” (Schnieder and Gebhardt 2016, p. 2). Digitalization is considered one of the central drivers of change in the mobility sector and, as a megatrend, is also triggering profound changes in various other sectors. The impact on the world of mobility is particularly comprehensive, since digitalization affects both the supply side and the demand side. However, the discourse on digitalization focuses predominantly on technical and economically relevant developments, whereas changes and potential on the level of possible users are less frequently highlighted. Technical and social developments are, however, inextricably interwoven and mutually dependent. Since digitalization is considered a decisive factor and the basis for the new mobility services, its significance will be discussed here. In its original sense, digitalization is understood as the transfer or translation of analog processes and ac-

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

107

tions from the real world into a data-based form that can be read by machines (Rees 2018, p. 5; Rürup and Jung 2017, p. 5). Digitalization is often associated with the effects it produces. It enables and promotes the constant networking of people, objects and places via the Internet. Networking involves the use of information and communication technologies (ICT), which involves the collection of enormous amounts of data (Big Data), which in turn can be processed and analyzed for various purposes. The data is collected on various platforms, which are regarded as administrative centers for the organization and processing of information and services. These altered contextual conditions are ultimately also leading to a transformation in business models in the private sector, with an increased focus on providing services instead of products. From a user perspective, this also means changes in consumer behavior, moving away from ownership and focusing instead on sharing goods and making use of the services on offer. Accordingly, digitalization is the basis for a shift towards a platform economy or sharing economy (Rees 2018, p. 6; Lyons 2018, p. 4). The proliferation of the smartphone plays a key role in this development and in the emergence of new mobility services, since it enables constant access to information, as well as booking and payment functions of the services on offer. In this context, one also talks in terms of digital mobility, which is defined as “the movement in physical and virtual spaces supported by technology” (Schmoll et al. 2014, p. 7). The basis for trouble-free use is good network quality throughout the country, although there are regional differences in Germany, with evident deficiencies in rural areas in particular (Agora Verkehrswende 2017, p. 17 f.).

5.6 On the Meaning of ‘New’ Mobility, Transport Services and New Mobility Services The debate about future mobility focuses on new concepts of mobility or new mobility services, which will now be discussed in more detail. The different terms are often used interchangeably, but there are still no standardized definitions. First of all, the adjective “new” needs to be examined. In this context, the term can be associated with change or further development and can be traced back to digitalization as a driver, as mentioned earlier. At the same time, ‘new’ can also be equated with the term innovative, as is often the case in the debate about transformation in the mobility sector. Innovations can be subdivided by frame of reference, so that in the context of mobility and transport a distinction is made between product innovations, usage innovations and system innovations.

108

  C. Wolking

Product innovations are based on technical progress, such as when a product is modified (e.g., an element of infrastructure or a means of transport) and made more efficient. Examples of product innovations are electro-mobility, autonomous driving, efficiency improvements in public transport, or the controversial electric (kick) scooters (Rammler and Sauter-Servaes 2013, p. 30). Usage innovations relate to the transport process and its organization. Existing products or, as in this case, means of transport are re-organized. Via the aforementioned platform economy, access to already familiar means of transportation is modified, with the focus now on use without ownership or on the temporary transfer of ownership. This changes the producer-consumer relationship or the provider-­ user relationship by offering transport as a service. Instead of buying a vehicle in a one-time transaction and thus acquiring ownership, temporary ownership is financed per unit (distance, trip, time: instead of ‘pay and use’, ‘pay per use’) (Rammler and Sauter-Servaes 2013, p. 33). Accordingly, innovations in usage also include new mobility services, which will be discussed in detail below. It is already clear from the preceding discussion that a holistic and integrative approach is necessary for designing a sustainable and demand-oriented transport system (see the contribution by Schwedes in this volume). The form of innovation with the greatest transformational power is considered to be system innovation. It combines the product and usage innovations described above and also requires major changes in terms of society, infrastructure (physical and digital), and political policy. Due to its wide-ranging systemic approach, this form of innovation offers the greatest potential for alleviating ecological and social pressures and establishing a new mobility culture. However, due to its high level of complexity, it is beset by the slowest pace of implementation, since the task of integrating interests from the public sector, the private sector, civil society and transport policy clearly poses a major challenge of coordination (Rammler 2014, p. 30).

5.6.1 New Mobility Services as Usage Innovation: A Differentiation The definitions of transport and mobility underlying the discussion here were outlined above. When applied to ‘new mobility services’, this entails differentiating between the physical and the digital services on offer. Thus, on the one hand there are transport services that expand the physical options, i.e. the objective choice of options for getting from one place to another (shuttle services, sharing services) and on the other hand the digital mobility services that contribute to a better awareness of the available mobility options. The new transport services are usually pro-

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

109

vided exclusively in combination with digital services, while digital services can also stand on their own. Accordingly, in the context of the present chapter, the term ‘new mobility services’ is used as an overarching conceptualization, which either includes a combination of transport services and digital mobility services but can also be a purely digital service. The availability of digital information and digital access makes it easier for users to plan their trips and gives them the opportunity to compare the services on offer before making use of them. The term “mobility services” refers to the options available for getting from place to place, rather than the actual change of location. It is an optional service, dependent on the user’s preferences. Public transport, in contrast, is referred to as a transport service, since, due to the fixed frequency, routes are not demand-responsive and are scheduled independently of an individual’s desire to travel. Thus, a distinction is made in what follows between physical and digital services, and new forms of transport services and digital mobility services are presented. Transport Services In the case of transport services, we speak of two parallel developments – the individualization of public, collective transport and private, individual transport being made publicly available. These developments are not new, since flexible forms of service in public transport (e.g., on-call buses or call-sharing cabs) have been in use since the 1970s in Germany and car sharing has its origins in the late 1980s (Rees 2018, p. 108 f.; Schwedes 2014b, p. 243). Nevertheless, it is only now, with digitalization, that a more dynamic, market-driven development and dissemination of flexible services is taking place. What is new is the digital access. The services can be divided into those that more closely resemble public transport, such as shuttle or driver services, where the focus is on being transported, and sharing services, which are similar to private use and enable “ownership” on a temporary basis. With shuttle/driver services, the term ‘service’ refers to transportation without the user having to drive himself or herself. The booking is made flexibly, on demand, within a business area, which is why this is also referred to as on-demand transport. If possible, journeys are ‘pooled’ by means of an algorithm in order to ensure high utilization of the vehicles. Accordingly, in the course of the trip, detours may be made in order to pick up additional passengers (Rees 2018, p. 114). If the service is operated by a commercial provider and a professional driver is employed, the service is called ride-selling or also ride-pooling. Examples in major German cities include Moia in Hamburg (HVV/Volkswagen) or BerlKönig in

110

  C. Wolking

Berlin (Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe/Daimler). If the ride is explicitly not shared and is only for a single user, the service can be called ride-hailing. Another form of sharing that can be defined as a transport service is a non-commercial form of ride-­ sharing: private individuals offer a place in their vehicle, where the trip has usually already been planned and is made independently of other passengers. Since it facilitates a service between private individuals, it can be called peer-to-peer-sharing (e.g. BlaBlaCar). The associated service platform then only plays a role as intermediary and – for example – can guarantee additional insurance coverage of the users. Ride-sourcing involves a shuttle/driver service that is offered via a commercial platform, but is provided by private drivers, using their privately-owned vehicles. In Germany, the Passenger Transportation Act (PBefG) stipulates that a passenger transportation license is required for the paid transportation of passengers. Accordingly, this form is not permitted in Germany, as the example of the UberPop service shows. The ‘new’ shuttle/driver services are viewed as competition not only for traditional public transport, but also for local taxi companies. However, taxis can also be classified under the heading of new mobility services, since they also provide digital access and the possibility of sharing rides. In future, all of the described forms of ride-hailing and sharing services may be effected by the introduction of autonomous, self-driving vehicles (Deutsch 2018, p. 259; Rees 2018, p. 113). Shared services involve making private, individual transport publicly accessible. They are based on the platform economy described earlier and the concept of ‘user-ship’ instead of ownership. The service provided entails making the means of transport available for a certain period of time (Rees 2018, p. 107). A crucial difference for users is whether it is a station-based or a free-floating sharing service. While station-based means that both the access to and the delivery of the vehicle occurs at a fixed location, the free-floating sharing service allows flexible rental and parking in a pre-defined area of use. It was the flexibility made possible by digital access options that facilitated an enormous increase in users and offers in the sphere of shared services (Rees 2018, p. 109; Giesel and Nobis 2016, p. 223). Although the focus is often on motorized individual transport in the form of various car-sharing services, micro-mobility, such as bicycles, cargo bikes, e-mopeds or e-kick scooters, can also be used as services via platforms. In contrast to shuttle/ driver services, these shared services require the users to operate or drive the vehicles themselves. This means that, in order to gain access to the service, one needs the requisite driver’s license, knowledge of how to use the vehicle in question and the rules of the road, as well as possessing the physical and mental prerequisites. The rented vehicle is not shared while using it, as it is in pooling. By renting the vehicle, the temporary ownership creates an impression of privacy, even though it

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

111

Transport supply - opportunies Digitalizaon as driver

Public Transport

Shule-Services

Sharing-Services

(M)IT

Transport services Individualizaon Publicaon

Collecve Usership Generally accessible

Individual Possession

Ownership Private

Fig. 5.1  Extension of the transport offer by transport services. (Source: Own illustration)

is actually a shared service. Figure 5.1 provides a summary overview of the explanations of the transportation services. Digital Mobility Services and Mobility as a Service (MaaS) As mentioned earlier, the physical facilities offered by transportation services are often complemented by digital mobility services, which provide information about mobility options, allow users to compare routes and prices and can include booking and payment options. Based on digitalization, the central tool is a digital platform – mostly in the form of an app on a smartphone. By using location-based data, the subjectively best option for travelling from A to B can be selected, tailored to individual needs. Monomodal (information) services refer exclusively to just one means of transportation and support users by planning trips (pre-trip) and also provide support in the course of a trip (on-trip service). Such applications can be found in multiple versions covering a wide range of mobility options. The functionalities can vary from mere information (navigation, information about departures) to integrated options for managing reservations, bookings and payment (Lanzendorf and Hebsaker 2017, p. 141; Gouthier and Nennstiel 2018, p. 579). Thus, the service can streamline different activities related to a mode of transport. The previously described transport services are usually bound to a complementary digital platform,

112

  C. Wolking

which facilitates public access. It provides information about availability in terms of location and time-frame and arranges the booking. The service also enables a ‘vertical integration’ of the services on offer, where different providers of a particular transport service are combined and presented in an integrated manner. For example, using an application for public transport, the information and booking service can be provided for both local rail and public road transport, or in a car-sharing app, different providers can be displayed. The abundance of different information and organizational platforms poses a challenge for users, because each individual offer stands on its own. This is unattractive for customers because they have to choose both a transport service and a provider when planning, or they have to compare availability themselves in order to find the best option for their individual needs. This can lead to confusion and thus to a limited subjective awareness of the wide range of options. Multimodal (information) services address this problem by aspiring to integrate different physical mobility services across modes and providers on a single platform (Lanzendorf and Hebsaker 2017, p. 138). Accordingly, here we can talk in terms of the digital integration of publicly accessible mobility options. In the debate about new mobility, for the phenomena of multimodal mobility platforms, the term mobility as a service (MaaS) is mainly used, also in context of the present chapter. However definitions of the terms vary widely, which is why MaaS can have different meanings. It is important to clearly separate MaaS as a platform from the term ‘mobility service’. Besides designating a platform, MaaS is often used as an umbrella term for new mobility services. The prerequisite for mobility as a service is a diverse range of different mobility services as well as a robust, functional digital infrastructure (Kamargianni and Matyas 2017, p. 12). In the published research, a demand-centered, user-oriented approach is seen as a central characteristic here (Jittrapirom et  al. 2017, p.  16; Giesecke et al. 2016, p. 1; Kamargianni and Matyas 2017, p. 12). The advantage for customers is that, by registering on a single platform, they are provided with a sort of a ‘mobility package’ in which not only information but also booking and payment options are managed centrally by a MaaS operator. This enables a combination of, and flexible choice between, modes of transport (Hensher and Mulley 2020, p. 2). Implementing a multimodal and supplier-neutral mobility service involves various challenges, however: for a holistic approach, co-operation between public and private actors from different levels (global as well as local) is necessary. For successful implementation, it is therefore essential that as many mobility options as possible are digitally visible and made available to customers on the plat-

113

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

Transport supply - opportunies Digitalizaon as driver Public Transport

Shule-Services

Sharing-Services

(M)IT

Transport services

Vercal integraon

Digital Mobility Services Mulmodal (Informaon) services Horizontal integraon

Monomodal (Informaon) services

Fig. 5.2  Expansion of subjective location change options through digital mobility services. (Source: Own illustration)

form. Although little research has been done on the impact of MaaS on user behavior, it is seen as having great potential for shaping demand-driven and sustainable mobility (Matyas and Kamargianni 2018, p. 2). Later in this chapter, the requirements for MaaS as an instrument for mobility management will be examined in more detail and perspectives for transport planning highlighted. In Fig. 5.2, the differences between digital mobility services are summarized and schematically presented. This is an ideal representation, bearing in mind that new mobility services are not available across the board and that holistic horizontal integration has not been very successful to date. Now that we have elucidated the transport services that expand the objective possibilities of moving from place to place, as well as the digital mobility services that influence the way that such services are subjectively perceived, we can propose the following definition of the new mobility services: “New mobility services are user-oriented services of digital or physical nature, that extend (the subjective awareness of) mobility options for a certain period of time in exchange for a payment.”

114

  C. Wolking

5.6.2 Stakeholders and Their Positions Changed contextual conditions, product as well as technology innovations, but also innovations in organization and the ways that mobility options are being used and accessed have led to support for the often-envisaged convergence of motorized individual transport and public transport. From a user perspective, this is a positive development, providing more opportunities for demand-oriented mobility and enabling flexibility, without the need for a privately-owned car. Under certain conditions, new mobility services constitute an incentive for a paradigm shift away from owner-oriented mobility toward user-oriented mobility. The diversified services can facilitate multimodal mobility behavior and encourage the use of environmentally-­friendly modes of transport. Until now, attempts on the part of public transport providers to introduce more flexibility have mostly led to little success due to structural obstructions and economic risks. The endeavors to make public transport more flexible and individual transport more public now seem to be enjoying some success – but predominantly through market-driven offers from the private sector with little influence and control on the part of government and local authorities. The original task of providing transport services is the responsibility of the public transport companies. As a result of the organizational concepts facilitated by digitalization, providers are becoming more diverse. A new organizational field is emerging in which stakeholders with very different objectives and requirements have to adapt jointly to new contextual conditions, dynamics, networks, norms and values (Meyer 2014, p. 170). The public sector is faced with private companies from the automotive, energy or IT sectors. Nearly all major automotive companies now offer some form of mobility services, often showcasing product innovations (e.g., electric vehicles). In terms of private actors, this results in a broad spectrum, ranging from established (global) corporations, such as Daimler, BMW, or Google, to small (local) start-ups, adding new players to the field of traditional ones (Karlsson et al. 2020, p. 286; Lanzendorf and Hebsaker 2017, p. 137). It is no longer possible to draw clear lines between the stakeholders’ fields of activities, and the services they offer often overlap. For example, public transport providers can also offer car-sharing (e.g. flinkster from DB) or automotive groups can provide flexible shuttle/ride-sharing services (Moia from VW). All providers in the field of new mobility services (both in terms of digital mobility services and transport services) clearly aim to develop the broadest possible portfolio. In some cases, a single provider offers different types of mobility concurrently, such as shuttle services, shared services, as well as multimodal (information) platforms (e.g. Daimler).

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

115

So far, the roles and responsibilities of the players in relation to the development of sustainable, demand-driven mobility have not yet been clearly defined. Relevant actors in the field of (public) mobility can be subdivided into different levels. At the macro level, the Federal government is responsible for defining the legal framework, setting objectives, as well as funding. At the meso level, regional and local government are responsible for formulating concrete goals and regulations. In addition, both public and private providers must be coordinated and coordinate with each other, as well as with policy-makers. At the micro level, it is ultimately the users who, through their attitudes, norms and respective requirements. Determine the acceptance and success of new mobility services. For the future design of public mobility, it is crucial to define clear responsibilities and tasks (Karlsson et al. 2020, p. 285). This is because the field of public transport policy is already beset by unclear responsibilities (Karl 2008, p. 30).

5.6.3 Criticism of the New Mobility Services Criticism of the new mobility services is often the result of the operators acting in a markedly economically-driven fashion, such that the interests of the common good and economic interests stand opposed to each other. Since the (privately run) services are exclusively designed for efficiency and maximum profit, factors of general accessibility oriented towards the common good often take a back seat, so that local availability, for example, can be severely limited (Docherty et al. 2018, p. 119). Shuttle and sharing services are often restricted to the city centers of metropolitan areas with more than 500,000 inhabitants, although they are already equipped with a good public transport network. The services are only rarely established in coordination with the local public transport network, so that competition tends to arise, with some even describing the resulting situation as the cannibalization of public transport (Deutsch 2018, p.  258; Lanzendorf and Hebsaker 2017, p. 146 f.). The consequence of the new mobility services, which have so far been strongly driven by economic imperatives, is that instead of the sought-after integration and complementarity of the means of transport, the predominant feature is competition between the services and their operators. On the one hand, competition creates a multitude of choices, but an overall, holistic and integrated concept is lacking. In addition, the conditions of use (costs, access, local availability, etc.) vary, which in turn is not very user-friendly and leads to confusion. By failing to offer an overarching platform, the large number of different digital access platforms can lead to the customer having a reduced awareness of the services on offer. Although initial collaborations between providers are already apparent (e.g., Jelbi

116

  C. Wolking

or Sharenow), an overarching, governing approach is still missing, especially on the part of state actors. For a holistic concept, clear governmental regulations are needed in order to create the best possible public mobility service for users and thus promote environmentally friendly mobility.

5.6.4 Public Mobility as a System Innovation With the goal of shaping a change in planning culture, in which a holistic, integrated approach is pursued instead of the design and planning of individual means of transport, the design of public mobility can be described as a system innovation to be striven for (Docherty et al. 2018, p. 118). Perspectives for public mobility can be based on digitalization. On the one hand, the objective possibilities for transport are expanded by the new forms on offer, and on the other hand, the subjective awareness of mobility options can be broadened by digital services. Concerning general accessibility for all, it is important to clearly analyze to what extent a service actually belongs to public mobility. While there is no assumption that the provider has to be public, the mobility being provided must itself nevertheless meet the requirements of public mobility. In order to design public mobility there is a need for transport policy to clearly define objectives and targets (normative integration). With this in mind, the following section deals with the normative understanding implied by public mobility. The concept of ‘public’ is inherently normative, which is why it is not possible to use it in a purely empirical-analytical fashion. ‘Public’ can thus be described as a ‘normative postulate’, i.e., as a state to be striven for (Jarren and Donges 2011, p. 96). Public mobility is seen as a compromise between individual automobility and public transport, although it should be emphasized that traditional public transport is in itself also an integral part of public mobility. However, conventional public transport is taking on a new quality, especially from the user’s point of view, and can be designed to be more demand-oriented. The normative objective can be derived from the respective positive characteristics of the means of transport (private and public transport). On the one hand, this means: flexibility, individuality, independence and comfort for the users, and on the other hand, efficiency, environmental friendliness and security of mobility on the supply side. Taking its lead from the guiding principle of integrated transport planning, a further goal is integration across providers and modes of transport, which promotes inter-modality and multi-­ modality. For planning, this ultimately means initiating and managing the cooperation and coordination of different actors, customer-oriented and flexible planning, the provision of (digital) infrastructure and the corresponding legal framework. It

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

117

is also important that goals are further differentiated at the municipal level. For the design of the new mobility services, detailed agreements between municipalities and providers will be necessary in order to meet demands for general accessibility (spatial/locational, social, material and media). Lastly, it is important that pull-­ measures focusing on the improvement of public mobility are accompanied by push-measures in order to reduce the attractiveness of private transport. Only the combination of push and pull-measures will lead to a change in mobility behavior.

5.7 Conclusion: Design Perspectives for Public Mobility in the Context of Mobility-Related Processes of Transformation The described changes and developments in the context of mobility and transport open up new design possibilities with regard to future public mobility. Changing contextual conditions require but also enable demand-oriented, ecologically compatible and economically efficient public mobility, with planning oriented towards the needs of the users. Regarding the design dimensions of integrated transport planning, we can distinguish the following approaches: Firstly, regarding the infrastructure, it is necessary to add a digital dimension in which the expansion of reliable and comprehensive data networks is essential. On the one hand, real-time data allows users easier access to the respective transport services. On the supply side, analysis of collected data provides opportunities for providers, transport planners and researchers to implement this information and to design transport services more efficiently and in a more user-oriented fashion. For example, public transport use can be increased (Hasse et al. 2017, p. 8). The challenge lies in guaranteeing reliable availability of data, data protection as well as being able to make adjustments to the infrastructure flexibly and at short notice. In addition to the digital infrastructure, mobility stations can also enhance the connectedness and visibility of new mobility services. In Berlin, the BVG is implementing so-called ‘mobility hubs’ in combination with the app Jelbi, providing various transport services at a single location (BBSR 2015, p. 6; Stadtraum 2019). The constant availability of current, location-based information via smartphone enables flexible decisions to be made regarding the most appropriate mode of transport considering time and location for the purpose of the transportation process. This results in a certain freedom and security of planning, leading to a feeling of increased comfort and autonomy. Information and communication platforms also create the opportunity to use means of transport more flexibly and to combine them better, facilitating inter- and multi-modal mobility behavior.

118

  C. Wolking

In terms of mobility behavior, there are also opportunities to optimize the subjective awareness of mobility options. In the context of mobility management measures, scope for action is also opening up for transport policy thanks to digitalized organization and information. However, this presents new challenges for providing adequate information about the available mobility options and managing them. It is also crucial that not only commercial services have a digital presence, but that a corresponding platform is also created for public mobility. Digital accessibility is becoming increasingly important in this context, because, without apps and ­platforms, it is difficult for services to be perceived in what is now a highly digitalized market (Rees 2018, p. 7). There are now many developments and innovations that aid in designing demand-­oriented and environmentally friendly mobility and which expand the physical and digital range of mobility services. While the federal and state governments must provide the prerequisites and framework for the promotion of public mobility, the task of implementing, managing and coordinating the existing services with a view to a transformation of local transport systems is the responsibility of the municipalities. In this context, it is essential to develop an understanding of the circumstances under which a service is considered ‘public’ or generally accessible and the legal framework to be established for it. In order to combine the new services in accordance with the guiding principle of integrated transport planning, mobility management stands out as an instrument of transport policy. For potential users, the attractiveness can be increased by using MaaS as a multimodal information platform to improve awareness, provide a better overview, simplify access and the combinability of the services on offer. From a planning point of view, the dynamic exchange with customers creates opportunities to influence mobility behavior with further specific mobility management measures (e.g. comparison of CO2 emissions, bonuses for green routes, mobility budgets, etc.). It is also conceivable to distinguish the service through customized package bookings with different ‘comfort’ levels. When designing mobility-as-a-service as an instrument of mobility management, it is important to ensure that social exclusion is avoided (Jittrapirom et al. 2017, p. 17; Giesecke et al. 2016, p. 6). While from the customer’s perspective MaaS is an information and booking platform, it can also be a platform for policymakers to coordinate and manage different providers. The prerequisite for an efficient and successful service lies primarily in the cooperation and coordination of private and public actors, whereby communication is necessary between the different actors and at different levels (Jittrapirom et al. 2017, p. 16). For a unified and jointly developed strategy, taking into account the different interests involved, it is necessary to create new stakeholder networks that enable cooperation between government, public administra-

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

119

tion, the private sector and civil society (political integration). In the process, actors must show a willingness to take on new roles and tasks. In order to exploit the potential of MaaS, it is also necessary to adapt legislation, where the challenge will be to find a compromise between regulation and scope for innovation, since outdated legislation can be a barrier to the development of MaaS (Karlsson et al. 2020, p. 292). An example of how new mobility services can also be anchored in law is provided by the Berlin Mobility Act (see Kirchner’s contribution in this volume). In order to bring together and coordinate the different interests behind the services, a central actor is needed to take on the task of mobility management, taking into account the normative goals of public mobility. To date, operators of MaaS have come primarily from the private sector. There is much to suggest that the task of ‘mobility manager’ should be assumed by municipalities or public transport providers, as this would allow clear control over the regulation and design of public mobility services. Figure  5.3 shows the potential function of public MaaS as a mobility management tool.

Fig. 5.3  The function of MaaS as an instrument of mobility management. (Source: Own illustration)

120

  C. Wolking

Since the concept is still new and little experience is available on the public form of MaaS, further investigation is needed on the possibilities for designing it. The analysis of pilot projects can provide information on the requirements for MaaS as a transport policy instrument for coordinating public mobility.

References Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club e. V. (ADAC). 2020. Zukunftsfähige öffentliche Mobilität außerhalb von Ballungsräumen. Konzeption einer Angebots- und Organisationsmodernisierung. Ergebnisbericht. https://assets.adac.de/image/upload/ v1581494746/ADAC-­e V/KOR/Text/PDF/zukunftsfaehige-­o effentliche-­m obilitaet-­ ausserhalb-­von-­ballungsraeumen_ADAC_Studie_kkr955.pdf. Accessed: 4. April 2020. Agora Verkehrswende, Hrsg. 2017. Mit der Verkehrswende die Mobilität von morgen sichern. 12 Thesen zur Verkehrswende (Kurzfassung). Arnold, Annika, J. Schippl und S. Wassermann. 2018. Von der Nische in den Mainstream? Über Akteure, Angebote und das Diffusionspotential von Mobility as a Service. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Risiko- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. 32. Becker, Udo J. 2001. Was ist nachhaltige Mobilität? https://material.htlwien10.at/uzsb/ zusatzmaterial/nachhalt_mobil.pdf. Accessed: 10. Mai 2017. Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR), Hrsg. 2015. Neue Mobilitätsformen, Mobilitätsstationen und Stadtgestalt. Kommunale Handlungsansätze zur Unterstützung neuer Mobilitätsformen durch die Berücksichtigung gestalterischer Aspekte. Bonn. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMU). 2016. Klimaschutzplan 2050. Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze und Ziele der Bundesregierung. https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/klimaschutzplan_2050_bf.pdf. Accessed: 6. April 2020. Canzler, Weert. 2012. Automobilität und Gesellschaft: Zur Verortung einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Mobilitätsforschung. Soziale Welt 63(4): 317–337. Canzler, Weert. 2016. The paradoxical nature of automobility. In: W. Canzler, S. Kesselring und V. Kaufmann, Hrsg. Tracing Mobilities. Towards a Cosmopolitan Perspective, 105– 118. London: Taylor and Francis. Deffner, Jutta, T.  Hefter und K.  Götz. 2014. Multioptionalität auf dem Vormarsch? Veränderte Mobilitätswünsche und technische Innovationen als neue Potenziale für einen multimodalen Öffentlichen Verkehr. In: O. Schwedes, Hrsg. Öffentliche Mobilität. Perspektiven für eine nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl., 201–227. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Deutsch, Volker. 2018. Autonome Betriebsformen in einem erweiterten ÖPNV-Markt. Perspektive autonomer und bedarfsgesteuerter Betriebsformen in einem erweiterten ÖPNV-­Markt. Straßenverkehrstechnik 62(4): 258–267. Docherty, Iain, G.  Marsden und J.  Anable. 2018. The governance of smart mobility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 115: 114–125. doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.012.

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

121

Dudenredaktion. 2020. „öffentlich“ auf Duden online. https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/oeffentlich. Accessed: 13. Mai 2020. Dziekan, Katrin und M.  Zistel. 2018. Öffentlicher Verkehr. In: O.  Schwedes, Hrsg. Verkehrspolitik, 347–372: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Fraedrich, Eva und B. Lenz. 2015. Vom (Mit-) Fahren: autonomes Fahren und Autonutzung. In: M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz und H. Winner, Hrsg. Autonomes Fahren. Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte, 688–707. s.l.: Springer. Gegner, Martin und O. Schwedes. 2014. Der Verkehr des Leviathan. Zur historischen Genese des städtischen Verkehrs im Rahmen der Daseinsvorsorge. In: O.  Schwedes, Hrsg. Öffentliche Mobilität. Perspektiven für eine nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl., 47–68. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Gerike, Regine. 2006. Wie kann das Leitbild nachhaltiger Verkehrsentwicklung konkretisiert werden? Ableitung grundlegender Aufgabenbereiche. Dresden. Gertz, Carsten. 2013. Raumwiderstände zwischen Freiheit und Zwang. In: O.  Schwedes, Hrsg. Räumliche Mobilität in der zweiten Moderne. Freiheit und Zwang bei Standortwahl und Verkehrsverhalten, 39–58. Münster: LIT. Giesecke, Raphael, T. Surakka und M. Hakonen. 2016. Conceptualising Mobility as a Service. A User Centric View on Key Issues of Mobility Services. In: Eleventh International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER). Giesel, Flemming und C.  Nobis. 2016. The Impact of Carsharing on Car Ownership in German Cities. Transportation Research Procedia 19: 215–224. doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.12.082. Gouthier, Matthias H.J. und C. Nennstiel. 2018. Neue Mobilitätskonzepte – Eine konzeptionelle Analyse. In: M. Bruhn und K. Hadwich, Hrsg. Service Business Development, 568–589. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft; mit einem Vorwort zur Neuauflage. 2. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Harman, Reg, W. Veeneman und P. Harman. 2012. Innovation in Public Transport. In: F. W. Geels, R.  Kemp, G.  Dudley und G.  Lyons, Hrsg. Automobility in transition? A socio-­ technical analysis of sustainable transport, 286–307. New York: Routledge. Hasse, Felix, M. Jahn, J. N. Ries, M. Wilkens, A. Barthelmess, D. Heinrichs und M. Goletz. 2017. Digital mobil in Deutschlands Städten. Hensher, David A. und C.  Mulley. 2020. Special issue on developments in Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and intelligent mobility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 131: 1–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.039. Hoffjann, Olaf und H.-J.  Arlt. 2015. Öffentlichkeit als Funktionssystem. In: O.  Hoffjann und H.-J. Arlt, Hrsg. Die nächste Öffentlichkeit, 7–36. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Institut für Mobilitätsforschung, Hrsg. 2006. Öffentlicher Personennahverkehr. Herausforderungen und Chancen. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Jarren, Otfried und P. Donges. 2011. Politische Kommunikation in der Mediengesellschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Jittrapirom, Peraphan, V. Caiati, A.-M. Feneri, S. Ebrahimigharehbaghi, M. J. A. González und J.  Narayan. 2017. Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions,

122

  C. Wolking

Assessments of Schemes, and Key Challenges. Urban Planning 2(2): 13–25. https://doi. org/10.17645/up.v2i2.931. Kagermeier, Andreas. 2011. Verkehrsgeographie. In: H. Gebhardt, R. Glaser, U. Radtke und P. Reuber, Hrsg. Geographie. Physische Geographie und Humangeographie, 735–749. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akad. Verl. Kamargianni, M. und M. Matyas. 2017. The Business Ecosystem of Mobility as a Service. In: 96th Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting. Karl, Astrid. 2008. Öffentlicher Verkehr im Gewährleistungsstaat. Der ÖPNV zwischen Regulierung und Wettbewerb. Berlin: edition sigma. Karl, Astrid. 2014. Strukturelle Reformblockaden im Öffentlichen Verkehr. Zu den Herausforderungen von Organisation und Rechtsrahmen. In: O.  Schwedes, Hrsg. Öffentliche Mobilität. Perspektiven für eine nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl., 71–96. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Karlsson, I.C.M., D.  Mukhtar-Landgren, G.  Smith, T.  Koglin, A.  Kronsell, E.  Lund, S.  Sarasini und J.  Sochor. 2020. Development and implementation of Mobility-as-aService – A qualitative study of barriers and enabling factors. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 131: 283–295. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.028. König, Rainer. 2007. Qualität des ÖPNV. https://www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/ servlet/is/237092/https://www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/servlet/is/237092/. Accessed: 4. April 2020. Kutter, Eckhard. 2016. Siedlungsstruktur und Verkehr: Zum Verständnis von Sachzwängen und individueller Verkehrserreichbarkeit in Stadtregionen. In: O. Schwedes, W. Canzler und A.  Knie, Hrsg. Handbuch Verkehrspolitik. 2. Aufl. 2016, 211–236. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Lanzendorf, Martin und J. Hebsaker. 2017. Mobilität 2.0 – Eine Systematisierung und sozial-­ räumliche Charakterisierung neuer Mobilitätsdienstleistungen. In: M. Wilde, M. Gather, C. Neiberger und J. Scheiner, Hrsg. Verkehr und Mobilität zwischen Alltagspraxis und Planungstheorie. Ökologische und soziale Perspektiven, 135–151. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Lyons, Glenn. 2012. Visions for the Future and the Need for a Social Science Perspective in Transport Studies. In: F. W. Geels, R. Kemp, G. Dudley und G. Lyons, Hrsg. Automobility in transition? A socio-technical analysis of sustainable transport, 29–48. New  York: Routledge. Lyons, Glenn. 2018. Getting smart about urban mobility  – Aligning the paradigms of smart and sustainable. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 115: 4–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.12.001. Matyas, Melinda und M.  Kamargianni. 2018. The potential of mobility as a service bundles as a mobility management tool. Transportation 18(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11116-­018-­9913-­4. Menzl, Marcus. 2013. Subjektive Raumwiderstände. Die Relevanz lokaler Bindungen bei der Konstitution von räumlichen Alltagsmustern. In: O. Schwedes, Hrsg. Räumliche Mobilität in der zweiten Moderne. Freiheit und Zwang bei Standortwahl und Verkehrsverhalten, 59–76. Münster: LIT. Meyer, Uli. 2014. Zum Verhältnis von Kollektiv- und Individualverkehr. Oder warum Versuche einer Zusammenführung zweier unterschiedlicher organisationaler Felder

5  Public Mobility and New Mobility Services: Contextual Conditions…

123

scheitern. In: O. Schwedes, Hrsg. Öffentliche Mobilität. Perspektiven für eine nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl., 169–187. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Nuhn, Helmut und M. Hesse. 2006. Verkehrsgeographie. UTB. 2687. Paderborn: Schöningh. Pavone, Marco. 2015. Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Systems for Future Urban Mobility. In: M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz und H. Winner, Hrsg. Autonomes Fahren. Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte, 399–416. s.l.: Springer. Rammler, Stephan und T.  Sauter-Servaes. 2013. Innovative Mobilitätsdienstleistungen. Arbeitspapier. 274. Rammler, Stephan. 2014. Im Omnibus in die Moderne. Öffentliche Verkehrssysteme im Spiegel gesellschaftlicher Modernisierung. In: O. Schwedes, Hrsg. Öffentliche Mobilität. Perspektiven für eine nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl., 25–46. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Rees, Dagmar. 2018. Digitalisierung in Mobilität und Verkehr. Schiene und öffentlicher Verkehr. Bingen: PMC Media House GmbH. Rölle, Daniel. 2005. Einflussfaktoren geänderten Mobilitätsverhaltens auf Arbeits- und Freizeitwegen. Zugl.: Stuttgart, Univ., Diss., 2005. Empirische und methodologische Beiträge zur Sozialwissenschaft. 22. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Rürup, Bert und S.  Jung. 2017. Digitalisierung: Chancen auf neues Wachstum. In: A.  Hildebrandt und W.  Landhäußer, Hrsg. CSR und Digitalisierung. Der digitale Wandel als Chance und Herausforderung für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 3–21. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Schade, Jens und B.  Schlag. 2007. Psychologie des Mobilitätsverhaltens. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (29–30/2007): 27–32. Schlag, Bernhard und L.  Rößger. 2019. Carsharing  – Motive und Intentionen. Report Psychologie 2 (2019) (45). Schmoll, Carsten, J. Tiemann und C. Welzel. 2014. Digitale Mobilität – Dynamik im öffentlichen Raum. Berlin. Schneider, Uta. 2018. Urbane Mobilität im Umbruch. Normen, Leitbilder und familiäre Aushandlungsprozesse zu Autos und Elektroautos. Studien zur Mobilitäts- und Verkehrsforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Schnieder, Lars und L.  Gebhardt. 2016. Nutzerorientierter Entwurf innovativer Mobilitätskonzepte für urbane Räume. Magdeburg. 14. Fachtagung EKA 2016 – Entwurf komplexer Automatisierungssysteme. Schwedes, Oliver und A. Rammert. 2020. Was ist Integrierte Verkehrsplanung? Hintergründe und Perspektiven am Menschen orientierter Planung. Berlin. IVP-Discussion Paper. 2020(2). Schwedes, Oliver, S.  Daubitz, A.  Rammert, B.  Sternkopf und M.  Hoor. 2018. Kleiner Begriffskanon der Mobilitätsforschung. 2. Auflage. IVP-Discussion Paper. 2018(1). Schwedes, Oliver. 2014a. Einleitung: Scheitern als Chance! In: O.  Schwedes, Hrsg. Öffentliche Mobilität. Perspektiven für eine nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl., 13–22. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schwedes, Oliver. 2014b. Fazit: Vom Öffentlichen Verkehr zu Öffentlichen Mobilität. In: O.  Schwedes, Hrsg. Öffentliche Mobilität. Perspektiven für eine nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl., 241–251. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Stadtraum. 2019. BVG Mobilitäts-Hub. https://www.stadtraum.com/stadtraum/aktuelles1906.html. Accessed: 24. Juni 2020.

124

  C. Wolking

Trapeze Switzerland GmbH. 2020. New Mobility: Bedarfsorientierte öffentliche Mobilität. https://www.trapezegroup.de/de/bedarfsverkehr/details/bedarfsorientierte-­oeffentliche-­ mobilitaet/. Accessed: 2. April 2020. Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen (VDV). 2019. Smart Mobility  – Neue Chancen für die öffentliche Mobilität. https://www.vdv.de/neue-­chancen-­fuer-­die-­oeffentliche-­ mobilitaet.aspx. Accessed: 2. April 2020. Zhou, Fan, Z. Zheng, J. Whitehead, R. K. Perrons, S. Washington und L. Page. 2020. Examining the impact of car-sharing on private vehicle ownership. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 138: 322–341. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.06.003.

6

Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin Bicycle Referendum Dirk von Schneidemesser

6.1 Introduction The impetus for Germany’s first bicycle law came from civil society. The impulse arose out of the ongoing and unresolved conflict between the automobile-focus of Germany’s conservative transport policy and the progressive desire for sustainable mobility. The latter involved a shift in orientation toward the mobility needs of citizens and required a redistribution of road space in favor of cycling. Consensus existed on the need to make transport more sustainable, but opinions differed greatly on how this should be accomplished. Traditionally, the focus of road traffic law in Germany has been on regulating the relationships between motor vehicles, and between motor vehicles and other objects. Schwedes (2014) questions the adequacy of this mobility policy, with three observations. First, that there is a broad social consensus on the need for an integrated transport policy. Second, that the integrated mobility approach is by no means new or surprising. And third, that this approach – despite the consensus it enjoys and its being widely known – has hardly been implemented. Pucher and Buehler (2017) point out that cycling has been neglected by both academia and transport planners for decades, even though it can offer solutions to mobility challenges. D. von Schneidemesser (*) IASS Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_6

125

126

D. von Schneidemesser

These observations point to a discrepancy between aspiration and reality in German transport policy. The resulting tensions between politics and civil society constituted the trigger for the civil society initiative that brought about the process of passing Germany’s first bicycle law as part of Berlin’s Mobility Law: The initiative Volksentscheid Fahrrad (VEF), meaning literally ‘bicycle referendum.’ As elsewhere in Germany, there is consensus across much of the political spectrum in Berlin that private automobile use should be reduced in favour of public transport and bicycles (CDU Berlin 2020; FDP Berlin 2016; SPD, Die Linke, Bündnis 90/ Die Grünen 2016). Despite this, in terms of its transport design, Berlin remains a car-oriented city to this day. Almost 60% of the street space in Berlin is devoted to motor traffic, although this only accounts for 25% of trips, and is in decline. Bicycle traffic, on the other hand, is allocated only 3% of the street space, although it already accounts for 18% of the trips made, and rising (Gerike et al. 2020; SenUVK 2019; Agentur für Clevere Städte 2014). This discrepancy between aspiration and reality ignited a desire for change and a new transport policy in Berlin’s civil society. Berlin is Germany’s largest city and, as a city-state, has powers of state legislation. These competencies, as well as the legal basis for popular legislation anchored in Berlin’s constitution, provided the structural framework for a change in transport policy that possesses a stature and a role model function beyond Berlin. In this chapter, I first outline the context of transport policy before discussing the specific case of mobility governance in Germany using the VEF as an example. In this context, forms of collaboration in the field of transport policy are explained. Subsequently, the roles of the actors involved in the field of mobility governance in the context of VEF and the Mobility Law are highlighted and illustrated with examples. Finally, suggestions for a new mode of collaboration are formulated to complement the current collaborative constellations with a civically-oriented collaborative mode.

6.2 The Path to the Mobility Law 6.2.1 Overarching Context The economic importance of the automotive industry led to the bicycle – despite a long tradition – being neglected by German policy makers (Oosterhuis 2016), unlike in neighboring Denmark and the Netherlands. Different from Italy or France, however, everyday cycling was common in Germany. This led to a situation where cycling as a mode of transport was normalized culturally, but at the same time marginalized politically. By the early 2000s, when various factors (political concerns

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

127

about climate change and financial crises, as well as contextual factors such as population growth, urbanization, and digitalization) converged that could have challenged the dominance of the automobile in economic and transport policy, the automobile had long since become firmly entrenched (Schwedes 2011, 2017). The corporatist constellations that characterize processes of governance in Germany (Lijphart 1999) stabilized the political relevance of the automobile. For example, the two central groups of actors in Federal transport governance – industry and business associations on the one hand and trade unions on the other – are economically-oriented actors which are strongly rooted in the automotive industry or related sectors. These economically-oriented structures denied potential partners from civil society access to governance processes. In addition, the importance of civically-­ oriented partners was further restricted by their limited resources, especially compared to partners from industry, such as the automotive industry or trade unions with their own sources of funding and corresponding professional organization. And even within civil society, automotive industry-related groups such as the ADAC (General German Automobile Club) had far more resources than their bicycle-­oriented counterpart, the ADFC (General German Bicycle Club) (Schwedes 2011). These groups, most notably the ADFC, were more anchored in structures of civil society than their car-oriented counterparts. Their focus was not on professional cycling (with potential for generating income) and they had fewer contacts with the bicycle industry than the ADAC had with the auto industry. There was significantly less overall financial support available (Oosterhuis 2016). This led to car-oriented advocacy groups with professional structures and effective funding opportunities positioning themselves as better political partners through greater professionalism and reliability. This disparity still exists today. For the VEF and Berlin’s mobility policy, this also meant that networks, structures, and processes for political partnerships were already in place when the VEF formed. Even if the political relevance of the existing cycling advocacy structures was nowhere near that of the automobile organizations, they were at least already in place. The established bicycle advocacy field was represented mainly by the ADFC, but also by the VCD (the ecologically-oriented Traffic Club of Germany) and other organizations.

6.2.2 The Specific Context: Bicycle Policy in Berlin Given the context described above, it is not surprising that the barriers to redistributing resources in favor of cycling remain considerable, even though the benefits of cycling for urban life and mobility policy (in response to climate, health, transport, as well as economic policy challenges) have become increasingly obvious. This is

128

D. von Schneidemesser

because  - despite decades of pledges regarding bicycle-friendly policies from a broad spectrum of politicians – governing politicians were not willing to re-order the existing priorities. If the call for more bicycling was made with sincere intent, the resulting conflict with the privileges of the automobile led to inaction and ­a perpetuation of privileges. In other words: whenever the concrete implementation of promoting bicycle mobility was on the agenda, it was hindered by an unwillingness to redistribute street space from motor vehices to bicycles. Due to the division of Berlin, it is difficult to find reliable figures for the entire city area between 1949 and 1990, but there is evidence that the share of bicycle traffic in traffic as a whole was twice as high in 1950 compared to 2004 (SenUVK 2019). This decline in bicycle use in Berlin in the second half of the twentieth century is largely due to the growing importance of the automobile. Even within the relatively limited area of West Berlin, freeways were built for inner-city automobile traffic. In the 1990s and 2000s, the bicycle lobby pursued a strategy of making cyclists clearly visible to motorists through various measures. These included designated bike lanes, painted directly on the road, and a campaign to persuade people that cyclists should be permitted to ride in the middle of traffic lanes. The main argument for these measures was that cyclists would be safer in the direct field of vision of motorists, because motorists would then notice them and thus avoid collisions. The bicycle lobby was successful with this strategy in that the number of designated bike lanes in Berlin increased, as did the number of cyclists (with the exception of a period of stagnation between 2000 and 2005). Nevertheless, from a policy perspective, the importance of cycling for everyday purposes remained low and the modal share of cycling did not increase significantly above 10% until 2009 (SenUVK 2019). Despite the increasing use of bicycles and declarations of intent on the part of policymakers to expand bicycle infrastructure (see, for example, the Cycling Strategy for Berlin (SenStadtUm 2013)), Berlin’s roads and transportation policies remained auto-oriented. Resistance to changes in transportation policy culminated in a high-profile event in 2013, when the Berlin government invited citizens to participate in a “Cycling Safety Dialogue.” Almost 30,000 Berliners accepted this invitation and, on a dedicated website, identified over 5000 places in the city where they felt unsafe as cyclists. In addition, they wrote over 4000 comments (SenStadtUm 2014). Many cyclists hoped that this Cycling Safety Dialogue would initiate a new mobility policy and bring about what they saw as a long-awaited political and infrastructural turnaround in favor of cycling. Two years later, disappointment was in the air: only one out of the more than 5000 places identified in the cycling safety dialogue had been made safer (Brückner

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

129

2016). Parts of the cycling community thus saw the need to radically change their tactics to bring about change. In late 2015, a group of long-time and new bicycle advocates answered Heinrich Strößenreuther’s call and formed the ­Volksentscheid Fahrrad (VEF) to achieve the goal of a bicycle-friendly city (Lüdemann and Strößenreuther 2018).

6.2.3 The Bicycle Referendum The early days of VEF were marked by conflicts, as is often the case with significant departures from the status-quo. These played out not only between VEF and politicians and administrators (referendums are often perceived as a direct challenge to political leadership), but were also fought out within the bicycle lobby itself. The demands made by the VEF and expressed in draft legislation represented a paradigm shift in transport policy characterized by three main features: first, the political orientation of the initiative; second, the re-orientation of the concept of expertise and thus the function of expertise; and third, the need for a new relationship between civil society and political and administrative authorities. A closer look at these three features is provided below in a narrative description of the VEF as a movement (Fig. 6.1).

Fig. 6.1  Activists of the bicycle referendum, 05.07.2016. (Photo: N. Michalke)

130

D. von Schneidemesser

6.2.3.1 Political Orientation: Physically Separated Bike Lanes and the Berlin Bike Lobby The VEF began by formulating ten measures that the city of Berlin should implement to become a bicycle-oriented city as soon as possible (see Table 6.1). These measures had to fall within the decision-making power or responsibility of the Berlin government, be realistic, and be achievable. One aspect of these demands in particular distinguished the new initiative from established reform-oriented actors in German transport policy and even from the bicycle lobby: the VEF advocated for a bicycle infrastructure that was physically separated from motor traffic. This principle was reflected in the VEF’s goals. It is also the most relevant feature that illustrates the paradigm shift in transport policy initiated by VEF. Separate infrastructure for bicycle and car traffic was rejected as dangerous by administrators, traffic planners and bicycle lobbyists (and to some extent still is). Some physically separated bike lanes in Germany routed cyclists behind rows of parked cars. This meant poor lines of vision that increased the risk of accidents due to unexpected encounters at intersections. However, the VEF dispelled the common assumption that the concept of ‘traffic’ necessarily means ‘automobile traffic.’ In other words, if cyclists in a bike lane are poorly visible from a motor vehicle, it is not the bike lane that is the problem; rather, the parked cars obstruct visibility. The segregated infrastructure envisioned in the VEF’s goals requires a massive redistribution of traffic space. This is because, in contrast to the previously established Berlin bicycle lobby, the measures focused on a different target group: the primary aim was not to improve the situation for those who already cycle regularly. Instead, the aim was to encourage cycling among those who do not yet do so. The Table 6.1  Core demands of the initiative Volksentscheid Fahrrad The 10 goals of the Volksentscheid Fahrrad: 1. 350 km of new cycle streets (where cyclists have the right of way) 2. 2-meter-wide safe cycling infrastructure on every main road 3. 75 dangerous intersections ‘neutralized’ per year 4. Transparent and efficient repair of infrastructure 5. 200.000 bicycle parking spots at transit stations and on the streets 6. 50 Green Waves for buses, cyclists, and pedestrians 7. 100 km of bicycle highways for commuters 8. Police units on bicycles and special unit for bicycle theft 9. More bicycle infrastructure planners in city/district administration and a central office for coordination of cycling 10. PR for accommodating higher modal share of cycling Source: Volksentscheid Fahrrad (2016)

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

131

VEF thus transferred the responsibility for safety from individual cyclists to the transport infrastructure, for which policymakers are responsible. Thus, the government became the main addressee of the VEF’s demands. The VEF’s position for separate infrastructure was rooted in a recent development in planning circles. Initial research found that the lack of a feeling of safety when cycling was a major barrier for many to choose cycling as a mode of transportation (Dill and Gliebe 2008; Dill and McNiel 2012; Geller 2006). In light of these developments, there had already been calls in some planning circles outside Germany for separate infrastructure for bicycles. The debate over separate infrastructures was one of the first major points of conflict encountered by the VEF. The approach to safety played an important role here. For many established actors in the field of transport policy, objective safety was the decisive factor for policy work. For the VEF, on the other hand, also increasing subjective safety was the only promising approach to significantly increase the proportion of cyclists. This is because it enables the many people who are open to this mode of transport but are concerned about their safety to decide in favor of cycling (Geller 2006). The Berlin chapter of the ADFC was divided on the issue of segregated infrastructure. As a member-oriented organization with a grassroots democratic structure, the ADFC represented those who already rode bicycles. Some in the ADFC argued that cyclists were safest riding in the street or directly beside the roadway on marked bike lanes because there they were visible to motorists. The VEF, on the other hand, argued that many people were not confident enough to ride their bikes directly next to motor vehicles. Mediating or even resolving this conflict was difficult because the basic assumptions and the resulting goals of these two positions were fundamentally different. The VEF activists wanted to get as many people as possible out of their cars and onto bicycles, whereas the ADFC wanted to improve safety for its members, who already used a bicycle regularly. Thus, a new actor entered the public arena, rejecting existing fundamentals of long-time bicycle advocates such as the ADFC. Nevertheless, the VEF sought the support of the ADFC. This was because a division in the Berlin bicycle advocacy community regarding a bicycle law would have been detrimental to the legislation-­ oriented approach. The conflict between the two positions was decided in favor of VEF at a vote at the annual meeting of ADFC Berlin. It also divided the board of the Berlin ADFC board and led to several resignations (Hasselmann 2016). Although this determined the political orientation of the Berlin bicycle lobby, this issue continues to cause conflict in the local groups of the bicycle advocates in Germany.

132

D. von Schneidemesser

6.2.3.2 New Experts in Transport Policy As mentioned in the previous section, there were different ideas regarding the main focus of transport policy. The field of transport policy itself tends to be dominated by technically-oriented experts and technocratic elites (Martens 2017); and this is particularly true for German transport policy (Schwedes 2011) as well as for related fields, such as climate policy (Hustedt 2013). Actors from civil society who find their way into the transport policy community in Germany often adapt to, and adopt these technical tendencies. As a result, the expertise accepted in German transport policy predominantly adopts a primarily technical perspective. This, in turn, makes it difficult for civic or civil society expertise to be taken into account in processes of policy formulation. The VEF called for other types of expertise to be used as the basis for a new transport policy that went beyond the usual horizon (von Schneidemesser et  al. 2018). This was because there was little quantitative data available from Germany that could be used to support the changes called for by the VEF.  This situation marked a break in approach and highlighted the dilemma of bringing about a change in established transport policy in Germany: since the required infrastructural measures were largely unknown in Germany, their effectiveness could not be demonstrated with data from Germany. This paradoxical situation underscores the paradigm shift heralded by the VEF. The policy change pursued was more radical than any demands that could come from within the realm of established transport policy itself. Prior to the VEF’s inception, structural blind spots led to tensions that remained unaddressed and unresolved problems. The Bicycle Safety Dialogue described above was an attempt by the Berlin government to acknowledge the role of citizens as experts on their city. However, transportation policymakers were unable to integrate the citizens’ input into practice, so the information they provided was dismissed as irrelevant. Citizens had been asked to indicate where they felt unsafe, but the subjective information and the resulting suggestions for improvements were incompatible with the objectivity expected by the decision-makers. The findings of the dialogue were thus marginalized by the planning culture and therefore also by the policy community. There was no ability, willingness, or interface to take up and work with suggestions from outside the established planning culture. For many activists in the VEF initiative, it was precisely this disappointment with the government’s inability to respond to the problems identified by citizens that motivated them to pursue a referendum, in order to force a change in policy. The defensive reactions of transport administrators and political experts point to the obstacles to opening up to other ways of acquiring knowledge. This was true

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

133

for the politicians involved (Liebigt 2016) as well as for the administrators (Kunst 2018). The volunteer advocates from the VEF had composed draft legislation by early 2016. This was initially discredited and rejected by the established experts. Thus, a different path in the political process was necessary. The VEF won public sympathy and support through direct appeals to the public, which raised awareness of the VEF’s demands. For a referendum to be held in the state of Berlin, the initiative had to submit a proposal for a change in the law or a draft law and then – in the first of three steps – collect 20,000 signatures within 6  months. Following that, the Berlin House of Representatives would have to debate the proposal and approve the next step, namely another petition, this time requiring 170,000 signatures from eligible voters within 4 months (see Fig. 6.2). Upon reaching this target, the parliament would be obliged to acknowledge the bill again and hold a referendum (which would require a simple majority with a quorum of one quarter of eligible voters).

Fig. 6.2  The road to the bicycle law. (Illustration: R. Seibert)

134

D. von Schneidemesser

VEF took the first step and collected more than 105,000 signatures within three and a half weeks – five times as many as required and in a fraction of the time allotted (Lüdemann and Strößenreuther 2018; Rehmet et al. 2018). The signatures were submitted to the state of Berlin in June 2016. The VEF accompanied the proposal for a bicycle law with a PR campaign that publicized the conflict between proponents and opponents of the mobility transition, as described above. As a result, cycling and the bicycle law became important issues in the run-up to the election of the Berlin House of Representatives in September 2016. The initiative had succeeded in opening the door for civil society engagement in transport policy: if political actors continued to deny the ‘new’ experts participation in transport policy decisions, politicians would be confronted with their demands, publicly and continuously. In this way, the VEF was able to break down the barriers that had resulted in the mobility expertise from civil society being ignored by the planning and policy community. Based on the draft law written by VEF, the newly-elected center-left government negotiated a mobility law with the initiative, which finally came into force in June 2018 and included the bicycle law. Comparing the VEF’s bill with the mobility law, it is evident that many passages were copied word for word from the draft into the law. In many other passages, content was transferred directly. Berlin’s mobility law showcases the possibility that knowledge from civil society can be directly integrated into transport planning. The mechanisms that sought to marginalize citizens’ knowledge as valuable expertise in transport policy were overcome through direct democratic procedures, supported by the public. This direct shaping of processes of transport policy by citizens’ knowledge was unprecedented and represented a paradigm shift in two respects. On the one hand, the content was a radical departure from the transport policy practiced in Germany. Secondly, it was a novel way of formulating policy: initiated by citizens and ultimately negotiated with civil society in a less exclusive process.

6.2.3.3 A New Relationship Between Politics, Administration and Citizens While it is common to consider stakeholder input in legislation, this direct initiative on the part of civil society and negotiation with governing politicians was new. This is because once the law is passed, the participation of civil society is ongoing: the law stipulates the continuous participation of civil society in the further development of transport policy at both the state and district levels (for example, by means of the so-called FahrRat, or Bicycle Council). However, this does not mean that the planning culture has also been reformed, because no binding competences have been granted to this participatory body (Land Berlin 2018, p. 475). It t­ herefore

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

135

remains unclear whether the decision-making process in transport policy has been changed in the long term. Has the Berlin Mobility Law actually changed the game or merely reshuffled the cards? Regardless, actors from civil society in Berlin and throughout Germany have brought the issue of transportation policy out of the technocratic ‘back room’ and made it the center of public attention. More and more initiatives are claiming the right to participate in urban development and transport policy (Rehmet et al. 2018). Currently, there are over 50 initiatives nationwide that are in various stages of the process that the VEF went through in Berlin (Changing Cities 2020). Some of these initiatives are at the state level, namely in North Rhine-Westphalia and Brandenburg, but the majority are at the municipal level. Moreover, mobility is no longer a topic that only receives attention in niche media: various prominent newspapers have introduced sections for topics pertaining to mobility beyond automobile traffic. The Tagesspiegel, for example, a daily newspaper published in Berlin, has introduced a section on ‘Bicycles and Traffic’ (Der Tagesspiegel 2020). However, public discussion of mobility, free of incomprehensible jargon, does not automatically mean that mobility is treated like other socio-political issues. Open and transparent processes in transport policy can currently often only be sustained when accompanied by significant public interest and attention. They are therefore by no means guaranteed. The sustainability of this paradigm shift in transport policy – a new relationship between civil society and politicians at various levels of government – thus remains uncertain at best. Continued and broad interest from the research community and the public can prevent a renewed retreat into technocratic backrooms. Thus, the future of civically-oriented collaboration in mobility governance has not yet been decided.

6.3 Reflections on the Road to Mobility Law Although the new relationship between transportation policymakers and civil society remains uncertain, it is the most promising and necessary aspect of the paradigm shift toward a public mobility policy. If we are to achieve mobility practices that serve the public, then a new mode of interaction between administration and policymaking is necessary. This cultural shift may prove to be the VEF’s most valuable contribution (see Hoor’s contribution in this volume). Achieving the VEF’s goals required extensive knowledge. This expertise was acquired in a process that required tens of thousands of hours of volunteer time (Volksentscheid Fahrrad 2018).

136

D. von Schneidemesser

Knowledge is thus not something that one simply possesses (or does not possess). It is constantly being developed in a dynamic process. This understanding of knowledge and expertise is something that needs to be accepted by institutional actors in transport policy in order to enable changes in transport policy and culture and in political processes. As Arancibia (2016) argues, the conception of knowledge as an exclusive commodity is the basis for justifying the exclusion of many (potential) sources of knowledge (for example, from entire social classes). This is because it enables a distinction between ‘lay people’ and ‘experts.’ In contrast, the new relationship between citizens, government and administration that is necessary for transport policy is based on the idea that citizens can contribute expertise on the requirements of sustainable public mobility. In this sense, a new understanding of roles is needed – especially on the part of administrators. Fischer (2000) has suggested that the role of the administration should change (at least partially) from that of a body of experts to an institution serving as an intermediary in gathering expertise. Concrete ways to achieve this have already been described and practiced, as exemplified in the present example.

6.3.1 A New Partnership for the Mobility Revolution 6.3.1.1 Civil Participation as a Resource At the core of the new relationship between government, administration, and civil actors is an attitude in which participation is perceived as a valuable resource. This attitude is characterized by the idea that knowledge comes in many different forms. Administrators must therefore be able to recognize, classify, and productively apply the expertise of citizens. This in turn enables them to work constructively with one another. This attitude is less about collecting and safeguarding expertise. Rather, it requires constantly questioning the relationship between the current categories of ‘layperson’ and ‘expert’ (or in our case: citizen and administration). The shift in self-perception from one who has exclusive expertise to one whose job it is to improve administrative processes through the facilitation and application of expertise will not be easy. It is not only the current structures, in which only administrators and those who are commissioned by government and administration view themselves as actors with relevant and exclusive expertise, that need to change. Citizens have also become accustomed to these structures and the corresponding notion of expertise and must first accept a change: that knowledge is no longer owned and safeguarded by one official body, but that their input will be included in a process of sharing, coordinating, and conveying knowledge. This constitutes a drastic reorientation of the processes in transport policy.

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

137

The new relationship between citizens and administration requires a change in expectations on the part of the former and fundamentally different structures, interfaces and ways of working on the part of the latter. Currently, it is common for administrators to focus exclusively on their area of responsibility and to refuse to deal with issues outside their immediate purview. This is rarely due to bad faith. Rather, it is based on experience – it is part of the expression of an instilled culture. For engaged citizens, however, it can be discouraging to first have to fight their way through a complicated jungle of competencies and responsibilities. Applied to the notion of mobility as a public service, this can be even more arduous if one has to navigate not only the jungle of administrative responsibilities, but also those of the service providers and contractors. Currently, these responsibilities are sometimes even structured in such a way that the responsibility does not lie with one actor, but rather disappears into the interstices (Bach and Wegrich 2016). With such structures, citizens are intentionally kept at a distance, and public interest in mobility is not understood as a resource, but as a threat. Additional factors hinder the change described above. In Berlin, the public administration has been subjected to an austerity regime for about 20  years. This means that capacities are scarce anyway due to a shortage of employees in public administration. It also means that the employees there are tend to be older (Berliner Senat 2018). Their training and formative experiences date back to a time when the goal was to a) create the car-friendly city and b) not spend money. Now, these same individuals are faced with a task that differs significantly from their customary practices: namely, designing the city to accommodate public mobility and spending the money needed to do so. Adapting to this transformation phase is therefore a new challenge for many administrators.

6.3.1.2 A New Mode of Collaboration for Administration and Civil Society Many of the transport engineers and planners employed in public administration complain that they do not have enough time for their tasks because they constantly receive and have to respond to inquiries and complaints from the public. At the same time, politicians and heads of administration complain that they cannot find qualified specialists (Berliner Senat 2018) to handle the planning and construction tasks required by the Mobility Law. The interface for a new mode of collaboration would have to be anchored in the administration. It would have to act as a public interface able to accept input across sections of the administration. The current labor market would be able to provide the necessary capacities for coordinating knowledge, consolidating communication between citizens, government, and administration and forwarding it to the right actors. In this way, expertise in

138

D. von Schneidemesser

a­dministrative processes could be established. Specialists (e.g. civil engineers) could thus be supported in public-oriented tasks (see the contribution by Hausigke and Kruse in this volume). New structures, attitudes and tasks mean new challenges. It should no longer be immediately perceived as a weakness or knowledge gap if administrators do not immediately find solutions to problems that are emerging. The fact that in 2013 the government asked citizens to help identify problems and solve them in the Cycling Safety Dialogue testifies to the desire of at least some actors in government and administration to enter into a closer relationship with citizens. The negotiation of the Mobility Law with the VEF is evidence that a new kind of relationship with civil society can be fruitful. However, the disappointment that followed the Bicycle Safety Dialogue and the dissatisfaction with the pace at which the Mobility Law is being implemented also indicate that this new relationship is not developing smoothly. Change will take time and may be repeatedly slowed down by setbacks.

6.3.1.3 Difficulties on the (Bicycle) Path to the New Mode of Collaboration Between Administration and Civil Society Current examples of the difficulties of this transformation are the Cycling Council (FahrRat) and the Cycling Plan, both of which are envisaged by the Mobility Law (MobG BE, §40). The Mobility Law provides for a FahrRat at the state level in §37(7) MobG BE: a participatory body in which stakeholders from government, administration and civil society are to meet and discuss how to implement the changes envisaged by law and other changes on the way to a bicycle-friendly city.

Case Study FahrRat The FahrRat is not a newly-formed body of unknown actors. What is new is that it is now anchored in the Mobility Law, albeit without binding areas of competence. “It works towards transparent and open processes as well as the involvement of all population groups through suitable procedures of participation on individual topics of cycling policy. The FahrRat participates in the development and updating of the cycling plan. It should be consulted prior to major planning decisions that have a city-wide impact” (MobG BE, §37). Theoretically, this could serve as a basis for implementing a new mode of collaboration. A look at the current situation shows that this aspiration will not be easy to fulfil, despite the fact that collaboration is enshrined in law. The deficits in implementation become clear in practice. The first meeting of the (legally enshrined) FahrRat took place in March 2020 – almost 2 years after the mobility law was passed. The delay was attributed to the state government, because

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

139

the law in question states that it must determine the composition of the FahrRat. Before the FahrRat was anchored in legislation, the body met for a full day three times a year. Currently, administrators want to meet for half a day three times a year. Despite the fact that the law calls for “transparent and open procedures,” it was suggested at the first meeting that many of the topics not be made public. The rationale was that otherwise only issues finally reviewed and approved in the administration would be brought up, and not interim statuses or untested ideas (source: personal correspondence). Issues that were important from the point of view of the delegate from Changing Cities e. V. were not included on the agenda (e.g., speeding up administrative processes, definition of responsibilities and timelines for important administrative directives, implementation of the infrastructure envisaged in the law [with time horizons], and the upcoming major infrastructure projects [with time horizons]). The way the FahrRat has been dealt with suggests that the administrative culture is still largely dominated by a static notion of knowledge or expertise, testifying to a sense of necessity to maintain structures in which experts are seen as exclusively possessing a high degree of knowledge and on this basis justify and defend their position of power. Thus, the question of who has what knowledge remains in the forefront, instead of jointly asking what knowledge can be used and how.

Case Study Bicycle Network Plan A further example is the development of the bicycle network plan. According to the Mobility Law, a bicycle infrastructure network plan should have been developed within 1 year of its adoption. This, along with other administrative guidelines (also pending), were supposed to form the basis for deciding what infrastructure is to be built, and where (Land Berlin 2018, §41). The bicycle network plan was produced by the administration in November 2021, more than three years after the law came into force. Actors from civil society such as Changing Cities e. V., together with the ADFC Berlin, VCD Nordost or Friends of the Earth, Berlin collaborated to form a 30-member team of citizens who developed a bicycle network plan and delivered it to the Senate administration at the end of 2019 (Changing Cities 2019b). To serve as a basis for the administration, it may have required appropriate reviews and adjustments so as to be productively integrated into the administration’s workflows. Even without these reviews, the document could have at least served as valuable input. However, the administration was not prepared to accept it and integrate it into its processes. Instead, despite the immense delay, the administration had a cycling network created by traditional planning experts in a process that corre-

140

D. von Schneidemesser

sponds to familiar procurement procedures. (However, the construction of ­so-­called ‘pop-up bike lanes’ in the Berlin district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg in response to the Covid 19 pandemic shows how helpful the bike network plan proposed by civil society can be for administrative work. The pop-up bike lanes in question run along the routes proposed in the network plan created by civil society). A prerequisite for the administration to benefit from the expertise of civil society would be the cultural change described above. Re-conceptualizing knowledge as a process rather than a reification would enable the integration of knowledge from civil society into transport policy. Due to current structures and widespread attitudes in the administration, contributions from civil society such as the cycling network plan are rejected as the ‘wrong kind’ of expertise. This also explains the defensive and exclusionary attitude towards bodies like the FahrRat. With a new attitude, these contributions and formats could instead be perceived as resources. After all, if civil society is able to draft legislation that contains the most important elements for a progressive and contemporary bicycle or mobility law, then civil society’s knowledge is quite capable of advancing other aspects of implementing the mobility transition.

6.4 Involving Civil Society Actors in Transport Policy Decision-Making and Management Processes The goal of citizen-oriented public mobility requires not only a new relationship between the actors currently involved in mobility governance, but also the involvement of new actors. Corporatist structures and established experts in Germany have blocked the integration of interests rooted in civil society into the processes of mobility governance. The VEF and the mobility law were exemplary and valuable in the sense that they showed what can be achieved when civil society plays a substantial role. The citizens involved in VEF have learned through the experience of civic engagement. Although for some the engagement has now ended or they are becoming active in other areas, the process has produced a large number of citizens who know how to get involved in transportation policy. Changing Cities e. V., the legal association behind the VEF, currently lists more than 50 cities with bicycle initiatives that have collected more than 1.000.000 signatures so far. That is about 2% of the German electorate. These people, their motivation and their experience offer a valuable resource for government and administration that could be used to design public mobility. The role of the administration is of central importance here. On the one hand, it is (reasonably) envisaged that the administration not throw important guidelines

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

141

for action overboard from one day to the next depending on the political mood. On the other hand, changes become necessary when a consensus exists over a longer period of time, resulting in a process that reorients the administration’s tasks. This is the case with the Mobility Law. Here, a corresponding reorientation of the administration would be necessary. Politicians who participated in this unprecedented process, which led to a new law, are reliant on evidence derived from administrative actions that a political reorientation is indeed relevant for society’s actions in the field of mobility (Schwedes et al. 2018). To fail to do so would send a fatal signal to citizens who got involved, complied with legal requirements, and used democratic institutions and procedures to bring about changes.

6.4.1 Participation as a Promising Resource in the Mobility Turnaround The changes brought about by the Mobility Law, for which the initial impetus came from civil society, are more revolutionary than any developments initiated by established actors in the field of transport policy in the recent past (see Kirchner’s contribution in this volume). More examples of this can be found: • The Berlin municipality of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg struggled from 2015 to 2019 to come up with a concept for Bergmannstraße, a popular shopping street. The concepts and traffic management trials in Bergmannstraße were always very controversial. However, when the local municipal administration invited randomly selected citizens to participate in a planning process for the street, the result was a more comprehensive departure from the automobile-oriented status-­ quo compared to previous proposals by activists (Bezirksamt Friedrichshain-­Kreuzberg 2019). • In a representative survey, only 21% of citizens felt that transportation policy in Germany was oriented towards the needs of citizens. 89% felt that transport policy was oriented towards economic interests (BMU 2019). Given the corporatist collaborative constellations that dominate current transport policy, this is not surprising. These examples highlight both a challenge and a necessity. Policymakers must show that their policies make a difference not only on paper but also in the real world. To do so, they depend on an administration that is capable of implementing this change – together with civil society. This, in turn, means a new planning culture and a new mode of collaboration for designing mobility.

142

D. von Schneidemesser

This chapter has illustrated through various examples how a new mode of collaboration could be designed and what conditions would need to be met. Some changes are relatively straightforward, such as establishing places where civil society and government can come together. Another prerequisite is expertise in formal processes. This could be promoted in the form of facilitators or intermediaries who assist both civil society and administrators in their interactions. Open and reliable communication channels are needed between civil society on the one hand and politics and administration on the other. The administration depends on political leadership that addresses problems openly and provides clear guidance through the process of transformation. Greater openness on the part of politicians would be helpful here: what steps are being taken in the background? Where do problems arise? Broad participation is needed for the transformation of mobility. To overcome the problems that plague formats like the FahrRat described above, openness and transparency are helpful. The prevailing political logic means that neither is self-­ evident. But they are necessary for an open, citizen-centered process of transformation and for citizen participation in finding and implementing solutions. Currently, the public can only assess government and administration by examining the implementation of the mobility transformation that is observable ‘on the street.’ This leads to conflictual modes of interaction, evident in the following quote: “The goal, then, is to improve bicycle infrastructure on approximately 3,100 of a total of 5,600 kilometers of roads in Berlin. In order to achieve this goal by 2030, 700 meters of bicycle facilities would need to be built per day, based on the date of the law’s enactment. Berlin is literally miles away from these self-imposed goals” (Changing Cities 2019a). The bicycle infrastructure envisaged in the Mobility Law is supposed to be completely in place on Berlin’s streets by 2030. Judging by the current pace of implementation, disappointment is inevitable, if substantial changes are not made. It would be a fatal mistake if problems in the administration prevented an ambitious transport policy. Therefore, politicians should design and implement the process openly. Where possible, they should accept help from citizens and design the mobility transformation in an integrated fashion.

6.5 Conclusion The process initiated by civil society had the aim of a formulating a bicycle law on the basis of direct democracy. Much more was achieved: a far more comprehensive Mobility Law which includes a section devoted to bicycles. In many ways, the sec-

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

143

tion on bicycles is better than the draft law written by civil society because people from different backgrounds developed it together in the negotiation process. Qualitatively, the law benefited from the process in which the experience and knowledge from administration and government were complemented and enriched by civil society. The added value that this created should be taken advantage of and put into practice. This is the core of the envisaged new relationship between government, administration, and civil society proposed in this chapter. Naturally, it remains undisputed that political and administrative processes follow their own logics. But with a new collaborative approach that views participation as a resource, more knowledge and diverse experiences would be available to the actors in positions of responsibility. Quite possibly, it would also lead to an increase in legitimacy. The diverse perspectives, types of knowledge and experiences that would benefit transportation policy and mobility design as a result of the approach outlined in the present chapter promise better public mobility, oriented towards citizens’ needs. Putting this approach into practice and making it more inclusive would, of course, have consequences. On the one hand, it would be associated with the disempowerment of current experts. On the other hand, all the players involved would be strengthened by jointly shaping transport policy and thus experience a gain in power. The precondition is that the administration, but also civil society, actively strive to bring together diverse perspectives, types of knowledge, and experiences. In order to design public mobility, the general public must be embedded in the design process. An approach that views participation as a resource can contribute to this. This can take different forms, as illustrated by the negotiations that resulted in the bicycle law. Workshops with randomly selected citizens discussing perspectives for neighborhood design, as in the case of Berlin’s Bergmannstrasse, are another example of how government can involve a representative part of society in planning processes. Changing Cities e. V., the organization behind the VEF, still has a long way to go in terms of gender parity or inclusion of migrants (as does the entire field of transport policy in Germany). Many minority groups are still not represented in the formulation of transport policy (see Daubitz’s contribution in this volume). The VEF’s demands were based on a different kind of knowledge than that which has been established in the field of mobility. Moreover, the VEF engaged in policy with an orientation toward an as yet unknown constituency: those who will use a bicycle for utilitarian purposes in the future. Nevertheless, the demands remained technically-oriented. Physically segregated bicycle infrastructure is a technical response to a problem to which cultural responses might also be conceivable (see Hoor’s contribution in this volume). Voluntary activists in civil society some-

144

D. von Schneidemesser

times have blind spots of their own. The VEF, for example, had nothing to say about correlations between improved quality of life and higher rents as a result of segregated bicycle infrastructure. Had the initiative included a wider variety of people, this may have been different. Inclusive approaches, then, can reveal potential improvements for civil society (for more on this, see McCullough et al. 2019; Hoffmann 2016; Hoffmann and Lugo 2014). The Mobility Act represents a paradigm shift in transportation policy – not only in terms of content, but also in terms of process. Legislation is an extreme measure and should be a last resort to bring about change. In this case, civil society resorted to direct democracy because appeals, wishes, and coalitions of the willing failed to bring about the change that requires political consensus. In the field of mobility policy, the corporatist, collaborative formats that characterize German politics have sidelined civic interests for too long. Stakeholders in the field of transportation policy in Berlin were unable to do anything with the results of the 2013 Bicycle Safety Dialogue. Because change was inhibited structurally, an initiative like the VEF was needed to break down entrenched structures. The tension between the consensus that a new design of public mobility based on an integrated transport policy is necessary and the rejection of this idea by politicians and administrators came to a head in a major societal conflict. This conflict created a niche that allowed these tensions to be aired. It also created an opportunity for government and administration to realize something new in a new mode together with civil society. But such confrontations  – while occasionally necessary  – are not always the most constructive way forward. A new relationship between civil society and administration could make collaboration between actors more productive. This requires a planning culture that views citizen participation as a resource and does not reify knowledge but emphasizes a process that facilitates and uses knowledge of various kinds - a process that will, one hopes, lead to a more inclusive and sustainable public mobility.

References Agentur für clevere Städte. 2014. “Wem gehört die Stadt? Der Flächen-Gerechtigkeits-­ Report: Mobilität und Flächengerechtigkeit  – Eine Vermessung Berliner Straßen.” Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Arancibia, Florencia. 2016. “Rethinking Activism and Expertise within Environmental Health Conflicts.” Sociology Compass 10 (6): 477–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12374. Bach, Tobias und Kai Wegrich. 2016. “Regulatory reform, accountability and blame in public service delivery: the public transport crisis in Berlin.” In The Routledge Handbook to

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

145

Accountability and Welfare State Reforms in Europe, hrsg. von Tom Christensen, 223–36. New York, NY: Routledge. Berliner Senat. 2018. “Berlin braucht eine leistungsstarke Verwaltung: Abschlussbericht der Steuerungsgruppe zur Verbesserung der gesamtstädtischen Verwaltungssteuerung.” Accessed on 24. Juni 2020. https://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/_assets/aktuelles/2018/juni/ abschlussbericht_final_web2.pdf. Bezirksamt Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg. 2019. „Perspektiven zur Bergmannstraße als Ergebnisse aus den Werkstätten vom 13. und 15. August 2019.“ Accessed on 19. März 2020. https://www.berlin.de/ba-­friedrichshain-­kreuzberg/politik-­und-­verwaltung/aemter/ strassen-­und-­gruenflaechenamt/strassen/faq-­begegnungszone-­bergmannstrasse-­809112. php. BMU. 2019. “Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2018: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage.” 1. Aufl. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Brückner, Claudia. Cycling in Berlin. Theory vs. Reality, 2016. Accessed on 1. Juli 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmENjUFsfns. CDU Berlin. 2020. “Berlin in Bewegung Bringen: Auf dem Weg zur Mobilitätsstadt nummer eins in Europa.” Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, zuletzt geprüft am 24. Juni 2020. https:// cduberlin.de/news/lokal/512/CDU-­Berlin-­beschliesst-­Verkehrskonzept.html. Changing Cities. 2019a. “Berlin darf nicht scheitern.” Accessed on 19. März 2020. https:// changing-­cities.org/berlin-­darf-­nicht-­scheitern/. Changing Cities. 2019b. “Verbände schenken Senat fertiges Radnetz.“ Accessed on 18. September 2020. https://changing-­cities.org/aktuelles/verbaende-­schenken-­senat-­ fertiges-­radnetz/. Changing Cities. 2020. “Radentscheide.” Accessed on 16. März 2020. https://changing-­ cities.org/radentscheide/. Der Tagesspiegel. 2020. Accessed on 24. Juni 2020. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/themen/ fahrrad-­verkehr/. Dill, Jennifer und John Gliebe. 2008. „Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: a Focus on Travel Time and Route Choice.“ Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Dill, Jennifer und Nathan McNiel. 2012. “Four Types of Cyclists? Testing a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential.” Working Paper. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. FDP Berlin. 2016. “Wahlprogramm.” Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, zuletzt geprüft am 24. Juni 2020. https://www.fdp-­berlin.de/partei/wahlprogramm-­zum-­abgeordnetenhaus/. Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. 4. Aufl. Durham: Duke University Press. Geller, Roger. 2006. “Four Types of Cyclists.” Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, zuletzt geprüft am 24. Juni 2020. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507. Gerike, Regine, Stefan Hubrich, Frank Ließke, Sebastian Wittig und Rico Wittwer. 2020. “Tabellenbericht zum Forschungsprojekt“ Mobilität in Städten – SrV 2018" in Berlin.” Mobilität in Städten SrV.  Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, zuletzt geprüft am 13. März 2020. https://www.berlin.de/senuvk/verkehr/politik_planung/zahlen_fakten/mobilitaet_2018/. Hasselmann, Jörn. 2016. “Streit um Fahrrad-Volksentscheid in Berlin: ADFC-­ Vorstandsmitglied tritt zurück.” Der Tagesspiegel, 2016. Accessed on 16. März 2020.

146

D. von Schneidemesser

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/streit-­um-­fahrrad-­volksentscheid-­in-­berlin-­adfc-­ vorstandsmitglied-­tritt-­zurueck/12959506.html. Hoffmann, Melody L. 2016. Bike Lanes Are White Lanes: Bicycle Advocacy and Urban Planning. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hoffmann, Melody Lynn und Adonia E. Lugo. 2014. “Who is ‘World Class?’ Transportation Justice and Bicycle Policy.” Urbanities 4 (1): 45–61. Hustedt, Thurid. 2013. “Analyzing Policy Advice: The case of Climate Policy in Germany.” Central European Journal of Public Policy 7 (1): 88–110. Kunst, Friedemann. 2018. “Das Berliner Mobilitätsgesetz: Ein entscheidender Beitrag zur ‘Verkehrswende’ in der Hauptstadt?”. Planerin 18 (4): 47–49. Land Berlin. 2018. Gesetz zur Neuregelung gesetzlicher Vorschriften zur Mobilitätsgewährleistung. Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt für Berlin 74 (18). 464–478. Liebigt, Sara. 2016. “Radikale Radfans? Das junge Volksbegehren für mehr Radwege erregt bereits den Unmut des Senats.” Neues Deutschland, 2016. Accessed on 16. März 2020. https://www.neues-­deutschland.de/artikel/996864.radikale-­radfans.html. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, Conn. Yale Univ. Press. Lüdemann, Martin und Heinrich Strößenreuther. 2018. “Warum Berlin in zehn Jahren auf Kopenhagen-Niveau umzubauen ist und wie die Initiative Volksentscheid Fahrrad mit Deutschlands erstem Radverkehrsgesetz das hinbekommen hat.” Umweltpsychologie 22(1): 105–130. Martens, Karel. 2017. Transport justice: Designing fair transportation systems. McCullough, Sarah R., Adonia Lugo und Rebecca van Stokkum. 2019. “Making Bicycling Equitable: Lessons from Sociocultural Research.” UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies – White Papers, 1–51. https://doi.org/10.7922/G22R3PWK. Oosterhuis, Harry. 2016. “Cycling, modernity and national culture.” Social History 41 (3): 233–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2016.1180897. Pucher, John und Ralph Buehler. 2017. “Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future.” Transport Reviews 37 (6): 689–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2017.13402 34. Rehmet, Frank, Thorsten Sterk, Volker Mittendorf und Yazgülü Zeybek. 2018. “Bürgerbegehrensbericht 2018.” Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. von Schneidemesser, Dirk, Jeremias Herberg und Dorota Stasiak. 2018. “Wissen auf die Straße  – ko-kreative Verkehrspolitik jenseits der “Knowledge-Action-Gap”.” In Das Wissen der Nachhaltigkeit: Herausforderungen zwischen Forschung und Beratung., hrsg. von Nico Lüdtke und Anna Henkel, 107–128. München: oekom. Schwedes, Oliver. 2011. “The Field of Transport Policy: An Initial Approach.” German Policy Studies 7 (2): 7–41. Schwedes, Oliver. 2014. “Das Leitbild einer integrierten Verkehrspolitik: Teil der Lösung oder Teil des Problems?”. In Öffentliche Mobilität: Perspektiven für eine nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung, hrsg. von Oliver Schwedes. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl., 145– 68. Research. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schwedes, Oliver. 2017. Verkehr im Kapitalismus. 1. Auflage. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. https://www.dampfboot-­verlag.de/shop/artikel/verkehr-­im-­kapitalismus. Schwedes, Oliver, Stephan Daubitz, Alexander Rammert, Benjamin Sternkopf und Maximilian Hoor. 2018. “Kleiner Begriffskanon Der Mobilitätsforschung.” IVP-

6  Public Mobility and New Forms of Governance: The Example of the Berlin…

147

Discussion Papers 1. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. https://www.ivp.tu-­berlin.de/ menue/discussion_paper/. SenStadtUm. 2013. “Radverkehrsstrategie für Berlin: Ziele, Maßnahmen, Modellprojekte.” Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. SenStadtUm. 2014. “Radfahren in Berlin – Abbiegen? Achtung! Sicher über die Kreuzung: Auswertungsbericht zur Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung.” Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. SenUVK. 2019. “Radverkehrszählstellen: Jahresbericht 2018”. SPD, Die Linke, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. 2016. “Berlin gemeinsam gestalten. Solidarisch. Nachhaltig. Weltoffen. Koalitionsvereinbarung.” Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, zuletzt geprüft am 24. Juni 2020. https://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/regierender-­buergermeister/ senat/koalitionsvereinbarung/. Volksentscheid Fahrrad. 2016. “10 Ziele – weil Berlin sich dreht!”. Accessed on 24. Juni 2020. https://volksentscheid-­fahrrad.de/de/ziele/. Volksentscheid Fahrrad. 2018. “Deutschlands erstes Radverkehrs- und Mobilitätsgesetz wird morgen dank Volksentscheidsinitiative und drei Jahren Engagement beschlossen.” Accessed on 16. März 2020. https://volksentscheid-­fahrrad.de/de/2018/06/27/deutschlands-­ erstes-­radverkehrs-­und-­mobilitaetsgesetz-­wird-­morgen-­dank-­volksentscheidsinitiative-­ und-­drei-­jahren-­engagement-­beschlossen-­4248/.

7

Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments and Paths to a Cultural Transport Turnaround Maximilian Hoor

Introduction This chapter deals with new mobility cultures and their significance for public mobility from a cultural-theoretical perspective. If the goal of transport planning and policy is to make it possible for every citizen to participate in society, but to limit the negative effects of the resulting traffic (see the introduction by Schwedes in this volume), then diverse and conflictual processes of redesign, redistribution and negotiation will be necessary, on both a material and a symbolic level: a new mobility culture is needed. Significance of Cultural Aspects of Mobility and Transport In political, medial, planning and academic discourses, the term ‘mobility culture’ is frequently used, especially when referring to the process of transformation towards sustainable mobility. Fundamentally, this is about the insight that entrenched lifestyles, routines and beliefs need to be understood and dismantled at both the individual and societal level in order to achieve sustainable or post-fossil mobility. For example, the tenacity and persistence of automobile use can be explained by political, social, technical, economic and cultural inertia, but also path dependencies: For many, the car was (and still is) a symbol of freedom, modernity, and indiM. Hoor (*) Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_7

149

150

M. Hoor

viduality that cannot be gotten out of people’s minds and is entrenched by strong emotionalization and conditioning – the car thus has a strong cultural significance for people’s everyday lifestyles and the functioning of our society, and a power of its own (Canzler and Radtke 2019; Grieger 2019). This helps to explain why most transport policy restrictions, such as parking management or speed limits, are seen as a collective deprivation of freedom, while automotive lifestyles and urban structures are simultaneously seen as normal and are being defended (Reents 2019; Manderscheid 2012). In this context, sustainable transport development requires a comprehensive transport turnaround, which inevitably involves consequential measures (Rudolph et al. 2018). Considering and communicating this dilemma is especially important now, as on the one hand the call for a transport turnaround and the transformation to more sustainable mobility cultures is on everyone’s lips, and on the other hand new developments are taking place, especially in urban everyday mobility, which are not easy to interpret: Are young people less car-savvy? Which mobility services are relevant for them? What can digitalization and new mobility services really achieve? How can the current rise in the importance of the bicycle be explained? It is apparent that much of the discourse is measured in terms of technical innovations and that the ‘simple’, obvious transport planning strategies and measures as well as social innovations are neglected: Hopes for autonomous driving as well as new information and communication technologies or novel means of transportation (e.g., e-scooters) seem out of proportion to past experience and serious prognoses (Schwedes 2020; Litman 2020). In contrast, however, cycling in particular, which as part of the environmental network stands pars pro toto for sustainable transport development, is recording enormous growth rates in cities and goes hand in hand with a multitude of everyday practices, needs and demands relating to transport policy, which despite all the successes in cycling policy have still not been sufficiently implemented and taken into account. Setting Objectives and Procedures The present chapter is a contribution to the determination of a new mobility culture. For this purpose, I will derive the theoretical understanding from mobility cultures (see chapter “Public Services and Public Mobility: The Role of the State as Guarantor”, based on Hoor 2020a). In a further step, I will describe conceptual foundations (chapter “Integration and Public Mobility: The Role of Planning”) and extrapolate from them which current development trends could be used or still need to be considered for transport planning and policy purposes (chapter “Participation and Public Mobility: The Role of Politics”).

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

151

In doing so, I would like to note that my own perspective, that of a convinced cyclist, and also my own research (along with the topic of mobility cultures), is almost exclusively limited to urban cycling. Nevertheless, or perhaps precisely because of this, I notice that there are certain topics where the rest of the environmental network can learn a lot from cycling – both positively and negatively.

1 Theory: Mobility Cultures As often as the term ‘mobility culture(s)’ is used, its definition remains unclear and arbitrary: Some understand it as changing the transport infrastructure in order to promote active mobility and public transport; others as changes in the way users act or behave with respect to mobility; still others as a new planning culture, e.g. on the part of municipal administrations. This problem is by no means new; as early as 2013, the term was described as ‘fashionable’, often “only used as a buzzword without explaining or defining it in more detail” (Ahrend et al. 2013, p. 42). In this context, the term is used prescriptively in the media and politically in particular, e.g., when a new mobility culture is being advocated. Academic uses of the term are mainly descriptive, analytical, and comparative (Götz et al. 2016; Institute for Mobilities Research 2013; Klinger et al. 2013; Deffner et al. 2006).

1.1 Conceptual Clarification Part of the conceptual ambiguity of mobility cultures is due to the ‘parent’ term mobility, which is also often used imprecisely, inconsistently, or even freely as analogous to the term transport (Schwedes et al. 2018; as well as the contribution by Rammert in this volume). In addition, there is the term culture, which, according to British cultural theorist Raymond Williams (1976) represents one of the most complex words in our language. In very general terms, culture can be understood as the connection between practices in the lived environment and objects and their symbolic meaning. Put simply, the concept of culture includes, on the one hand, material things and what people do; on the other hand, the different meanings these things and doings can have for certain individuals and groups of people (Müller-­Funk 2010; Eagleton 2000; Williams 1961, 1981). Foundations of Cultural Theory The interpretations of the term culture and subsequent theories of culture are extremely heterogeneous and diverse (Nünning and Nünning 2008). I use the non-­

152

M. Hoor

elitist definitions of culture by Raymond Williams (1961, 1981) and from the field of cultural studies, which understand culture on the one hand as the totality of all ways of life and on the other hand as a system of meaning. Culture is thus to be understood as the medium that assigns a symbolic value to the material world and banal, everyday practices and endows them with meaning. In this context, culture always refers to the aspects of the material and the spiritual: structural conditions and processes such as infrastructures, laws, political and economic relations, but also lived practices are the basis for their cultural representations in narratives, myths, discourses, practices, ideologies and world views. The relationship between these spheres has to be understood as reciprocal: thus, material structures and processes produce certain representations, but are also shaped and (re)produced by them. According to this understanding of culture, mobility cultures must be seen both as representations and at the same time as producers of infrastructure, transport, and mobility (Divall and Revill 2005; Mitchell 2000). Existing Uses of Terms in Mobility Research In conceptualizing mobility culture, the team around Jutta Deffner (2006) chose a perspective that entails “analyzing the mobility events of socio-spatial entities […] and describing them as a complex interdependence of infrastructural, structural, discursive, social, socio-cultural, and action-related factors” (Götz et  al. 2016, p. 782 f.). According to their definition, a mobility culture is “the totality of materially and symbolically effective forms of practice related to mobility. It includes infrastructure and spatial design as well as guiding principles and discourses of transport policy, the behavior of road users and the underlying mobility and lifestyle orientations. It refers to the processual interaction of mobility actors, infrastructures, and technologies as a socio-technical system” (Deffner et  al. 2006, p. 16). This comparative approach was then adopted by other scholars in subsequent studies, in order to compare the mobility cultures of different cities (Klinger et al. 2013) or to investigate the mobility culture of global megacities (Institute for Mobilities Research 2013). In this context, the focus on rather quantitative, comparative, and homogenizing cultural analyses raises problems: despite the aspiration to compare socio-spatial entities and develop a usable understanding for transportation research and planning, the question arises to what extent, and even whether, mobility culture(s) can be adequately operationalized, measured, and compared at all, without glossing over the conflictual and normatively-charged processes of negotiation through which they are created, become firmly established, and changed in the first place; or risks neglecting the plurality, heterogene-

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

153

ity, and contradictions that can arise within socio-spatial entities, in social groups, and between individuals, and that are always inscribed in cultures of mobility. Synthesis It should be noted that there is never just one culture, but that there are always a multitude of different cultures that coexist, intersect, include and exclude, and struggle for meaning. Already here, a political impetus of the concept of culture becomes clear, which is particularly relevant for transport and mobility research that is goal-oriented, social-science-based and actor-centered. Thus, the choice of the term mobility culture (in the singular) already displays an understanding of culture that linguistically excludes the simultaneity of different mobility cultures within a socio-spatial entity. For these reasons, it makes little sense theoretically, empirically, or linguistically to speak of mobility cultures in the singular and to refer to, for example a sustainable mobility culture in a specific city or region. What is often meant by this, however – and this is also the case in the present text – is that certain, sometimes very heterogeneous mobility cultures are considered desirable according to a certain normative goal orientation (e.g., socio-ecological sustainability or public mobility) and are therefore unified under a mobility culture. “Mobility cultures thus refer to the totality of all, sometimes conflicting, everyday practices, objects and attributions of meaning that – embedded in material structures and social dispositions – (re)present and (re)produce individual possibilities for moving from place to place” (Hoor 2020a, p. 24).

1.2 What Are Mobility Cultures? On Conflictual Negotiation Processes In the tradition of Anglo-Saxon cultural studies, culture must always be understood as a field in which “political and social identities are produced and reproduced” that produce “coercive exclusions, as well as relations of dominance and subordination, which in turn encounter resistance” (Marchart 2008, p. 12). Culture is thus the medium of conflict and struggle in which existing power structures are discursively normalized, solidified, contested, and negotiated in one’s lived environment. The Struggle for Hegemony Don Mitchell describes this connection between culture, power, and society allegorically, describing culture as “an incredibly powerful idea [that] is made real, as real as any other exercise of power” (Mitchell 2000, p. 76 f.), in which aesthetic

154

M. Hoor

and symbolic representations are transformed into material structures. In Anglo-­ Saxon cultural studies, this conceptual connection between power structures and cultural representations is linked to Antonio Gramsci’s (1992) understanding of state power and hegemony (e.g. Hall 2000, 2004; Williams 1981): according to Gramsci, culture is “conceived as an essential site of political struggles for hegemony” (Marchart 2008, p. 76). Hegemony, in short, is the softer side of the exercise of power in society, which – in addition to classical state constraints in the form of law, politics, and economics – secures and (re)produces domination through consensus in civil society and voluntary assent (Buckel and Fischer-Lescano 2007). Hegemony means that the power of dominant social groups is both legitimized and appears natural – hegemony as something that is lived and believed in. In particular, the seemingly harmless actions in the everyday life of citizens have a greater macro-political significance, precisely because they arise from certain power relations and continuously (re)produce them (Marchart 2008; Buckel and Fischer-Lescano 2007). This is of interest in terms of transport policy, since it is not a matter of large-scale federal, state, or local political decisions, but rather of small-­ scale politics in everyday life on the street. In this context, cultural hegemony is first of all conservative and potent  – it strives for its own existence – but it is never unchallenged stable or final, but rather has to be permanently defended against challenges. In this understanding, culture then functions both as a stabilizer of dominant ways of life and guiding principles, for example, in that certain discursive norms such as “Germany as a car country” are both materially and ideologically perpetuated and normalized. But culture can also act as an engine of change through (sub)cultural practices (such as deviant driving practices).1 The effects of such changes can be seen in the way cyclists use space (for example, in the development of a new urban planning system) or in changed narratives and guiding principles (as in people-oriented and livable cities) (Müller-Funk 2007, 2010; Furness 2010). In the process, cultural hegemonies are often maintained and oppositional demands defused, for example in the form of concessions by means of which demands originally understood as subversive are incorporated into the majority society and thus commercialized (Langemeyer 2009; Marchart 2008; Featherstone 2007; Boltanksi and Chiapello 2006).

 By deviant practices, I mean, for example, not obeying the traffic rules, such as disregarding red lights, riding fixed-gear bikes without a separate braking system, or not using designated bike lanes. 1

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

155

Cultural Struggles as the Beginning of Any Transport Turnaround De facto, we have a cultural hegemony in mobility, namely the “system of automobility” (Urry 2004), which is to be understood as the “space-constituting dispositive of modernity” (Manderscheid 2012) and is supported by material and cultural-­ symbolic elements. In this context, however, there is increasing talk of a culture war in the media and politics, raising fundamental questions such as “Who owns the street?”, attacking the automotive hegemony. Headlines such as: “Cyclists are crazy. They kick, spit, scold. They race around without helmets and lights. They steal the road from us” (Drechsler 2017) from the November 2017 issue of ­AutoBild show an emotional defensiveness and indignation that highlights how important a cultural factor can be in order to adequately understand current trends in mobility and transportation. This symbolic and emotional charging of everyday understandings and practices has – in mobility cultural terms – its origins in political and economic decisions and path dependencies as well as in hegemonic narratives, discourses, worldviews, and myths that continuously normalize, cement, and (re)produce these power structures. The propagation of an automobile society, the call for ‘freedom of the road for free citizens’ or the stigmatization of cyclists as ‘combat cyclists’2 must thus always be read as an ideological expression of existing power relations. Just as cyclists are virtually forced, due to structural subordination, to constitute themselves as road users of equal standing in the first place and to assert themselves in road traffic through subcultural and sometimes irregular practices (Aldred and Jungnickel 2014; Furness 2010), their strategies and demands have been continuously delegitimized, excluded, and subordinated by mass media headlines, traffic law sanctions, and decades of being disregarded by government as well as planners. The fact that this understanding (in media, discourse, planning, and politics) is undergoing a comprehensive change is a clear sign that a historical window of opportunity has opened up for cycling, but also for the entire environmental network, in the struggle for cultural-political power of interpretation, which is why the advancement / promotion of a new mobility culture finds itself on particularly fertile ground here. The literary and cultural scholar Wolfgang Müller-Funk (2010, p. 284) writes: “The word ‘Kulturkampf’ has mostly negative connotations and leaves a bad taste in the mouth, since it evokes associations with repression. (…) But cultural struggle as a dispute about meaning is part of the everyday life of developed civil and democratically organized societies. (…) What should be valid, what is ‘signifi The German term is “Kampfradler”, meaning cyclists who ride in an aggressive fashion (translator’s note). 2

156

M. Hoor

cant’, has to be negotiated”. In this context, the continuously increasing emotionality in the debates on transport policy shows that existing structures, convictions, ways of life and identities have already been decisively attacked and that the struggle for meanings is in full swing. A ‘culture war’ in the field of mobility and transport is thus not to be read as a problem, but as a sign of a public recognition and a strengthening of subordinate and alternative mobility cultures, and thus a necessary component and beginning of any transport turnaround.

1.3 Integration of Mobility Cultures in Integrated Transport Planning and Policy In the German, as well as in the Anglo-Saxon context, a fundamental paradigm shift in the field of transport planning is called for (Schwedes and Hoor 2019; Litman 2013; Banister 2008). Because of the similarity of the approaches in their focus on goal-oriented and actor-centered demand planning, they are subsumed here under the term integrated transport planning (see Schwedes’ contribution in this volume). The basic insight is that the classical paradigms of transport planning, which are technically and engineering-oriented (supply planning and increasing transport efficiency by minimizing time and costs) will not help to make transport more sustainable, but  – on the contrary  – further cement the status quo of car-­ centered planning. A new planning paradigm in transport research must therefore integrate the social sphere more strongly, focus on people, include alternative modes of transport and a strategic goal orientation in the integrated perspective. Integrated transport planning is thus to be understood as an interdisciplinary and evidence-based approach, with the help of which complex social conditions can be adequately described and shaped within the framework of sustainable development. In terms of transport policy, this involves negotiating the different interests as well as a normative, political, technical and spatial integration with the aim of promoting sustainable transport development (Schwedes and Rammert 2020). Especially with the focus on people, their needs, requirements, and routines, as well as the hastened behavioral change among transport providers and consumers, a cultural revision of the way planning has been understood to date becomes important (Hoor 2020a).

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

157

2 Foundations of a New Mobility Culture Even though Northern Europe is often referred to as a prime example of a strong environmental alliance, the automobile still plays a decisive role in urban mobility here and a discussion of public mobility that doesn’t refer to it is not very meaningful. After all, designing a public mobility culture is primarily about resolving the dilemma that the private automobile satisfies a basic need for individual mobility at the expense of the common good (Schwedes 2017; Knoflacher 2009). While to this point the most hope-inspiring changes are to be found in the area of cycling as well as cycling policy, public transport (PT) in particular has not yet succeeded in adapting to the new mobility needs and bringing about a fundamental structural change.

2.1 The Need for a New Mobility Culture The reasons why a new mobility culture is needed are manifold and stem primarily from the many negative effects of motorized individual transport. These include the environmental impacts of transport in terms of noise, air, climate, and land use; effects on the spatial and temporal organization of life, work, and leisure; the structuring and fragmentation of cities; or the conversion of public space into mono-­ functional areas assigned to traffic (Becker 2018; SRU 2005; Sheller and Urry 2000; Augé 1995; Illich 1974; Jacobs 1961). Many of these negative effects can be counteracted by transport-related economic and political decisions and measures, e.g. by internalizing external effects and through comprehensive redistribution and restructuring measures. However, in order to also sustainably change mobility behavior, different dimensions of human action must be considered. This is imperative, because while sustainable transport development is widely desired socially, politically, as well as in terms of planning, contradictions still arise when it comes to concrete implementation and acceptance: for example, while a large section of the German population concur that urban and transport development with fewer cars and more space for walking and cycling can contribute to a good life, they are nevertheless opposed to restrictive measures (Umweltbundesamt 2017b). In terms of transport policy, the strategies of modal shift and traffic avoidance are particularly significant for sustainable transport development, although technical measures for transport efficiency (such as promoting electro-mobility) are often more business-friendly and politically opportune and therefore dominate the discourse on transport policy (Umweltbundesamt 2019; Schwedes 2018). If the avoid-

158

M. Hoor

ance strategy has a bad reputation, requiring precisely these restrictions and a comprehensive structural change of citizens and society, the modal shift, on the other hand, seems to get by with promoting public transport, cycling and walking, or the shared use of vehicles. However, we should not fool ourselves here either – ‘promotion’ may sound harmless, but under the given conditions it can also only be achieved through extensive structural as well as mental transformations and processes of redistribution, involving extensive push and pull measures designed to massively restrict the existing hegemony of the automobile (Holz-Rau 2018). This is already evident in the Berlin Mobility Act as well as its conflict-ridden genesis (see the contributions by Dirk von Schneidemesser and Jens-Holger Kirchner in this volume). For it is precisely in cities endowed with ideal conditions for cycling, walking and public transport in their inner cities, with their dense and compact layout, that the dominance of motorized individual transport inevitably leads to discrimination against other means of transport. Thus, in terms of bicycle traffic, Berlin often has the image of a bicycle-friendly city when viewed by outsiders. However, while the share of bicycle traffic has increased significantly in recent years, infrastructure and services for bicycles have not been expanded accordingly. Due to the extensive work done by cycling policy initiatives, the city is now on the verge of a major infrastructural transformation, which has been politically approved in the new Berlin Mobility Act. Nevertheless, due to the slow pace of expansion, the ongoing lack of safe and comfortable cycling infrastructure, and the enduring dominance of automobiles, cycling in Berlin is still considered a subordinate practice that often requires courage, skill, and experience, which is reflected, among other things, in the poor results of studies on cycling friendliness (ADFC 2019). Beyond that, however, with its hundreds of bike stores, the aforementioned initiatives, well-known fairs and races, and lively and heterogeneous cycling milieus, Berlin is one of the European hotspots of urban cycling culture, which has already undergone a comprehensive process of change. This will be briefly presented below in order to extrapolate from it some connecting factors for public mobility.

2.2 Points of Departure: Cyclists as Pioneers of Public Mobility Cycling has undergone a major shift in importance over the past 15 years, particularly in urban areas (Nobis 2019). From a transport planning perspective, this is understandable. In the context of urban transformation and the demands of climate change, urban cycling as a form of sustainable mobility is essential for improving/

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

159

maintaining quality of life and meeting individual needs (Pucher and Buehler 2012). In this context, the bicycle is at the same time one of the simplest, minimalist means of transportation available, but also a technically sophisticated, diverse, and individualized object that is suitable for very many different uses and groups of users (Cox 2015, 2019; Hutchinson 2017; Hadland and Lessing 2016; Vivanco 2013; Horton et al. 2007). People ride bicycles for a wide variety of reasons, including necessity, fun, health, sport, out of conviction, for practical reasons, or to display their membership in a particular lifestyle group. There are at least as many reasons not to use the bicycle. All these different meanings are inscribed in the object bicycle and in the everyday practice of cycling, and they are communicated, negotiated and consolidated in cultural products (e.g. books, films, stories). In the process, a change is emerging in the social normalization and the accompanying manifestations of urban cycling: while the bicycle was long considered a piece of equipment only for recreation and sport, it is now also a means of distinction for certain strata of the urban population, a symbol of the transport turnaround, and it goes hand in hand with fresh ideas of healthy urban coexistence. The origins of this development can be found primarily in various urban bicycle-related subcultures such as the bicycle-courier scene that emerged in the 1980s, which is strongly characterized by certain symbols of affiliation (including fixed gears, courier bags) and practices (including risky and self-confident riding styles). The styles and practices of bike messengers found their way into urban fashions in the noughties and are still relevant today for much of the development of other bike-­ related scenes, such as the current fixie, road bike, cyclo-cross, and gravel scenes (Hoor 2020b; Kidder 2011; Furness 2010; Wehr 2009; Fincham 2007). Although these subcultural roots are mostly correct, genealogically speaking, urban cycling scenes have become much more heterogeneous, commercial, and open to the mass-market. I will illustrate this broader shift in meaning by looking at three Hollywood films that draw on these subcultural roots and showcase the bicycle as a means of distinction and a lifestyle accessory: the film Premium Rush, for example, is about a bicycle messenger who accidentally gets involved in a criminal case and, pursued by cars, has to flee in a spectacular fashion through New York City on his bicycle. Also worth mentioning is Tomb Raider, in which the extensive opening scene features a bicycle-courier race of sorts. While in the 1986 film Quicksilver from 1986, the character of the bicycle courier illustrates the social decline of a formerly successful banker, in Premium Rush and Tomb Raider bicycle couriers eventually become the hero/heroine and the bicycle their powerful tool, analogous to the fast car in most action films. In summary, a strong aestheticization and stylization of the bicycle as a lifestyle accessory is evident in many urban bicycle scenes (Hoor 2020b). Subcultures that

160

M. Hoor

were once only cultivated by professional athletes or bike messengers are now part of popular culture and are accompanied by a strong commercialization – for instance: • Hipsters who ride fixies, carry messenger bags, or buy themselves fancy road bikes, gravel bikes, and cycling gear. • People who hang their bikes in their living rooms instead of leaving them on the street. • Bicycle industry and fashion products that combine modern design style with bike-specific functionality. • Bike stores that not only sell bikes but also function as a hip café, meeting place, restaurant or bar. • Media features in newspapers, film and advertising in which the bicycle is celebrated as a cool and sustainable means of transportation, backed up by new stories. These are all developments that have not been furthered by cycling policy, but have emerged in parallel, out of subcultural as well as hedonistic and commercial interests, and are continually endowing the bicycle with new attributes that inspire more and more people to use it, many of them newcomers.

2.3 Critical Potential: Everyday Practices and the Production of Space(s) Surely it is the supreme illusion to defer to architects, urbanists or planners as being experts or ultimate authorities in matters relating to space. (Henri Lefebvre 1991, p. 95)

The everyday practices of cycling and walking are important for a public mobility culture in several respects: besides their positive effects for sustainable traffic development, they can be understood on the one hand as a performative critique of the space allotted to automobiles and the existing traffic structures; on the other hand, walking and cycling have their own ways of appropriating and producing space. Idealizing somewhat, one can speak of a revitalization and appropriation of non-places, as described by Marc Augé (1995) and Michel de Certeau (1988): urban spaces – such as mono-functional traffic spaces – become “playing fields”, so to speak, and are constituted anew through the practices of cycling and walking, as

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

161

a result of their specific forms of perception and the experiences involved. This is particularly evident in the Critical Mass3 events: “By taking action which temporarily transforms the cityscape into one dominated by bicycles, pedestrians and the sound of human voices, an alternative, sustainable society is being brought into existence, however temporarily” (Horton 2006, p.  55). In this context, Critical Mass can be read as a short-term and fleeting implementation of a utopia in which the balance of power on the streets shifts in favor of cycling (Furness 2005). Furthermore, cycling, walking, and using public transportation allow for direct contact and interaction with other people and the urban environment. The latter is not only perceived more intensively and sensuously, it is also made use of more intensively and sensuously. Cyclists, who move around largely unprotected and are dependent only on their own muscle power, are much less isolated from their surroundings than car drivers and are perceived as much more ‘human’ than the technical object of the automobile, due to their immediate presence and the possibility of interaction (Jensen 2009, 2010; Horton et al. 2007; Spinney 2006). The bicycle produces a spatial proximity and thus also favors the revitalization of inner cities and public spaces, and even furthers the constitution of democratic subjects, who are stirred by cycling to civic engagement and identify more strongly with their neighborhoods and urban spaces (Aldred 2010). In this context, a dilemma of sustainable transportation development is that it is rarely appreciated as a “public, indivisible good” (Schwedes 2017, p. 112). In particular, a new mobility culture requires a comprehensive change in values, where public space is once again increasingly viewed as a collective common good – an urban commons – that must be cared for by all sides. However, this requires an increased identification with public space and a resulting sense of responsibility on the part of the population.

2.4 Defining the Goal: What Do We Mean by ‘Mobility Culture’? The terms multimodal mobility culture, post-fossil mobility culture, sustainable mobility culture, public mobility culture or even new mobility culture all describe more or less the same thing. However, I would like to warn against ideological  Critical Mass is a monthly event promoting cycling that has been held worldwide since 1992. It involves a large group of cyclists riding through cities and campaigning under the slogan “We’re not blocking Traffic. We ARE Traffic!”, demonstrating for better conditions for cyclists. 3

162

M. Hoor

homogenization: if even small-scale terms such as cycling do not do justice to the diversity of users (groups), practices, and meanings (see Sect. 7.3.2), and then terms such as active mobility, environmentally-friendly mobility, public mobility and the above-mentioned phenomena are assumed to be homogeneous, there is a clear risk of overemphasizing supposed commonalities and ignoring major differences between them. This is because a large part of the self-image arises from a dialectical and constitutive relationship to the current dominance of the automobile, which continually minimizes the internal differences. The visions of a “Cycling Infrastructure for All!” (ADFC 2018, p.  11), the “city for tomorrow” (Umweltbundesamt 2017a) or a comprehensive “public mobility culture” are perhaps to be understood as desirable objectives, but they are open to criticism from a simple insight derived from the social sciences and cultural studies: every inclusion produces new exclusions! Furthermore, the expansion of bicycle infrastructure as well as the overarching guiding principles of ‘sustainable mobility’ or the ‘livable city’ are heavily criticized from a social justice perspective, especially in the U.S.A. The promotion of cycling as well as the revitalization of public space are said to go hand in hand with a rediscovery and upgrading of inner cities, thus benefiting in particular the already privileged strata – transport policy as a modern form of class politics that consolidates existing social inequalities (e.g. along classical lines of discrimination such as race, class and gender) and even exacerbates them, under the legitimation of a supposed inclusivity. The rise in importance of cycling also goes hand in hand with these problems and reproduces male-dominated views of cycling in particular (MAMILS, ‘Strong and Fearless’, etc.), which can hinder the development of inclusive cycling but also socially just urban development (Stehlin 2019; Lugo 2018; Lam 2018; Hoffmann 2016; Sheller 2015). Thus, a new mobility culture that wants to live up to its own aspirations can only succeed “if it is linked to a normative conception of justice that guides action and addresses the connection between mobility and social exclusion” (Daubitz 2018; see also Daubitz’s contribution in this volume). One of the tasks will be to achieve an orientation to a common goal that goes beyond educated, bourgeois discourse with its ‘make a wish’ rhetoric and also includes groups that have so far been marginalized and have not participated in the discourse – regardless of whether they are potential losers or winners in the transport revolution. In this context, it is worth examining previous decision-making processes – especially with regard to public opinion, where political decisions are already vicariously contested. Public opinion is legitimized by resonance in and consent of the population, and is the “opinion on which many have publicly agreed” (Hannah Arendt, cited in König 2012, p. 15). For example, the resounding success of the

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

163

bicycle referendum in Berlin was dependent on being able to submit a petition for a referendum with more than 100,000 signatures to the Berlin House of Representatives within a very short period of time – its political mandate was thus buttressed, even though there were, of course, vocal dissenting voices. Previous surveys and participatory approaches to the transport turnaround or environmental awareness already show that it is legitimate to speak in terms of a public opinion that provides political justification for the fundamental goal of sustainable transport development. This can be considered an undoubted success, that can be built on (Böhm and Herzberg 2020; Umweltbundesamt 2017b).

3 Process: Pathways to a Public Mobility Culture? It is easier to root out weeds than it is sexism. To transform a whole culture would be a good deal more laborious than damming a river or razing a mountain. (Eagleton 2000, p. 132)

Implicit in many statements in the field of transportation policy and planning is the assumption that ‘soft’ factors, such as socio-cultural behaviors, attitudes, and values, are easier to change than ‘hard’ factors, such as infrastructure or laws. Comparing this assessment with the above quote from literary theorist, Terry Eagleton, reveals the discrepancy in the respective assessments: from the point of view of cultural theory, cultures are highly resistant, contingent and can only be influenced in an indeterminate fashion, whereas from the point of view of mobility and transport research, culture is mostly a derived variable. On this point, I share the cultural-­theoretical assumption that the material side of culture (for example, the transport infrastructure) is easier to deal with than the spiritual side. For precisely this reason, a sound understanding of the spiritual dimensions of culture in their interplay with the material dimension is essential in order to shape the process of transformation. This justifies specifically encouraging environmentally friendly means of transport by means of a targeted combination of restrictive as well as promotional measures, with a simultaneous focus on strategies of information, evaluation, participation and communication. Without these latter measures (and even though, hegemonically and theoretically speaking, political coercion—for instance, bans on driving – always remains possible), the goal of long-term change in dominant societal models, discourses, and narratives, and thus sustained civil-society consensus, will never be reached.

164

M. Hoor

3.1 Modal Shift and Motivations for Choosing a Mode of Transport Although cycling is an important part of new mobility cultures, I think it makes particularly clear that other sustainable modes of transport are still missing. The change in the significance of cycling, which is especially noticeable among young urbanites, is not necessarily evident for other forms of public mobility, even if the publicity campaigns of the Berlin Transport Authority (BVG) in recent years are a positive example. However, this is all the more important if the automobile is ultimately to be outstripped, and it would have to be implemented just as consistently by a number of players. For “automobiles are thus not just technical vehicles and objects of purposive rational action and economic calculation, but they also have an essential social and cultural dimension” (Schmidt 2018, p. 374). In this context, the automobile was “long considered a symbol of freedom and independence, inscribed in the routines of every individual” (Canzler and Radtke 2019) – the “car in the mind,” as Andreas Knie (2005) has called it. That said, there is clearly a great diversity of different automobile cultures, with the car having undergone a transformation from a status symbol of the bourgeoisie to a mass product to a product of different lifestyles of the (post)modern, consumer society (Miller 2001; Featherstone 2004; Schmidt 2018). To classify these more persistent, socio-cultural forces at work in individual mobility behavior, it helps to look at the environmental and socio-psychological motives behind the choice of a transport mode. Indeed, the choice of transport mode cannot be explained exclusively in rational terms (e.g., cost, speed, availability, time savings), but depends on more complex affective and symbolic motives (Jakobsson 2007; Steg 2005). Affective motives include negative feelings such as stress, insecurity, or exertion, but also positive ones such as enthusiasm, pleasure, or excitement. On the other hand, symbolic motives subsume the possibilities of status building and identification. Symbolic motives thus fulfill two functions: they constitute a reference point for social classification and, in addition, offer possibilities for expressing personal identity and personal values via different lifestyles. Thus, a specific means of transport can be chosen for reasons to do with prestige and status, as well as being an expression of a certain, e.g. environmentally friendly, lifestyle and affiliation with a certain group or values (Gatersleben 2013; Steg 2005; Steg et al. 2001). Thus, if the goal is to move away from cars to other modes of public mobility, then either the reasons for using a car have to become obsolete or the same attributes have to be by provided other modes of transportation. From my own research, for example, I know people who used to be part of the car tuning scene but

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

165

have now turned their backs on it and enthusiastically do the same with bicycles – it’s cooler and cheaper. The bicycle has already become a status symbol for young urbanites and has replaced the car in some areas; now cycling just needs to become more convenient and safer. Extending these affective and symbolic motives to walking and public transport seems to be necessary in order for these modes of transport to be able to compete with automobile culture.

3.2 Symbolic Capital and Cultural Intermediaries For this to happen, however, public transport must first and foremost seek to attract its own clientele and build up its own symbolic capital. The expression “cases to be transported” to refer to public transport passengers was used for people who have precisely no means of private transport and thus no other choice but to use public transport use (so-called captives). This reflects the erroneous self-conception that public transport functions only as a fallback for those who cannot afford the ways and means of individual mobility and that there is no need to seek out additional target groups (Dziekan and Zistel 2018). The image of contemporary rail transport also needs to be dusted off: “Both the romantic weekend trip in the streetcar from the last century as well as an excursion into the countryside with the steam locomotive are popular, or even the ‘adventurous’ company outing with the handcar” (Schwedes 2014, p. 241). This historical technology fetishism, however, does not seem to be compatible with the masses. To put it crudely, technical expertise regarding public transport is not a convincing form of cultural capital: if having a knowledge of, and being able to distinguish between, Standert, 8bar and Schindelhauer is evidence of style and expertise among sporty (Berlin) cyclists, knowledge of different S-Bahn series (e.g. ‘Cola can’ and ‘diving goggles’) strikes me as rather nerdy. Don’t get me wrong: technical expertise always seems nerdy to outsiders beyond a certain point; the difference is that expertise about bicycles on a larger scale is the subject of everyday conversations and observations, lifestyle choices, advertising campaigns, or cultural products, and is thus more widely disseminated, normalized, and understood. In this context, the bicycle often functions as an indicator of something else, such as a sustainable, urban lifestyle or a trip to the countryside. People can identify with bicycles, express their taste preferences, and set themselves apart from others. For example, I make a different statement and am perceived differently when I ride a fixie rather than a Dutch bike – but this cultural distinction is not possible if I take the regional train instead of the city train.

166

M. Hoor

Certain cultural intermediaries are particularly important for these attributions of meaning, precisely in order to detect processes of cultural change at an early stage and to prepare them commercially for a wider society. The case study of urban cycling illustrates how certain actors in the cycling scene (e.g. couriers, hobby and amateur athletes, hipsters) can function as “neo-liberal role models”, through their production, distribution, and marketing of products, services, and lifestyles, a function that Sebastian Schweer (2014, p. 167) also attests to skateboarders. The basis for this is being poised “between urban rebellion and neo-liberal self-design” (ibid.), between knowledge of the scene and marketing skills (Engelmann 1999). Especially for the latter, however, the most important prerequisites are the possibilities of individualization, self-expression and identification, which are apparently more pronounced in the case of individual means of transport. My observations indicate that, apart from bicycle riding, a new mobility culture has a certain image and role-model problem: public mobility has so far lacked these individual and collective possibilities of design and identification, it lacks symbolic capital, as well as someone who can authentically embody these possibilities and effectively highlight their merits politically and economically, as well as in planning and the media. On the one hand, this can be seen as a shortcoming, but on the other hand, it also opens up new possibilities, precisely because the existing codifications are not yet too heavily biased by certain groupings (see the example of bicycle culture in Sect. 7.3.2). The pending image change of public mobility could therefore still be used to make it more inclusive, sustainable and equitable from the outset.

3.3 New Narratives, Aestheticizations, Cultural Products and Media Representations We lack images, positive visions of, and stories about, a new mobility culture. We lack the inner map of a continent to which we are drawn because the promises it holds are more attractive than what we experience in the present. (Stephan Rammler 2018, p. 38)

Referring back to the example of urban cycling cultures (Sect. 7.3.2), I would like to address the following points, which have contributed greatly to the rise in importance of cycling, but which have yet to be established in the field of public mobility: new narratives, media representations, cultural products, and an aestheticization of objects and practices. To paraphrase the quote from Stephan Rammler

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

167

above, at the moment we are still lacking a concrete conception and experience of what a culture of public mobility could look like, and what life would then feel like. There are many individual measures and ideas, but they all still seem somewhat isolated and reductionist. This is because holistic visions of a new mobility culture must do justice to both the complexity of everyday life and the divergent target groups, their interests, needs and forms of access: the equation ‘fewer cars + more cycling = livable city’, as often propounded by cycling initiatives, for example, does not do justice to this complexity. At the same time, it is entirely questionable whether such cross-modal, holistic, and influential images, narratives, and visions for a new mobility culture can exist at all, or whether they are not necessarily always partial, specific, and dependent on perspective. In order to investigate this and to be able to distinguish any changes, it would be important to examine the different cultural products and media representations that are associated with different modes of transport and also represent different mobility cultures. For it is these cultural products and media representations in particular that are important in producing, disseminating, and consolidating certain narratives, readings, images, symbols, and understandings in a broader social context, be it in literature, film, music, newspapers, or social media: be it the VW Samba as a hippie icon combined with the Woodstock sound, or the fixed gear, courier bag, and punk rock music for bicycle couriers – what would be the stereotypical and distinctive representations of a public mobility, or a new mobility culture? In all this, it should not be forgotten that our imagination and desire are stimulated above all by aesthetic displays. Due to the abundance of images and signs that aestheticize the urban environment, the sign function of everyday objects is often more important than their technical function, i.e. their utility value (Chambers 1986; Jameson 1984; Baudrillard 1968). A classic example is the purchase of an expensive car: part of the value of an automobile is due to its functionality and its material costs. Nevertheless, very expensive cars are purchased primarily for reasons of social prestige – for their symbolic value. These individualistic and symbolic motives, such as visibility, self-expression, distinction, and lifestyles, are important for the constitution of public mobility cultures, especially when it comes to involving young people at an early age (Umweltbundesamt 2019). This is because, in order to take on automobile culture, battles for social recognition must also be fought, and this works primarily through the aestheticization of primarily functional articles, as is obvious in the example of fashion, but also applies precisely to automobile culture and increasingly to cycling. In order to achieve this, on the one hand, urban space must be adapted to the (aesthetic) needs and inherent logics of environmentally-friendly mobility (Forsyth

168

M. Hoor

and Krizek 2011; Gehl 2010). On the other hand, new lighthouse projects are needed, which, analogous to the highway of the car-friendly city, or the boulevard, or the train station for modernity, can be considered icons of a public mobility culture, symbolically anticipating the change and pointing us in the right direction. However, if one considers a means of transportation purely as a way of getting from A to B quickly, safely, and conveniently, then one fails to recognize its cultural value (Jensen 2009, 2010). Without these identity-creating functions (whether for cities, groups, or individuals), the necessary individualization of collective public transport and rendering it attractive, will be difficult to achieve. Moreover, cultural values need to change: for example, the culture of being chauffeured around, formerly a bourgeois luxury, which has now been replaced by the narrative of individual mobility, of doing the driving oneself, could perhaps be re-branded. Indeed, the idea of being driven around and using travel time for more meaningful activities is touted as one of the most important arguments for autonomous driving (Cyganski et al. 2015) – while it has long since become a matter of course for users of public transport.

3.4 New Cultural Techniques and Routines Almost all of us have learned how to drive. At some point, this cultural technique became second nature to us. We don’t think about how to move our legs back and forth between the gas pedal, the clutch, and the brake pedal; we shift gears automatically and look in the rearview mirror without giving it a second thought. (Wolfgang Müller-Funk 2010, p. 17)

As can be seen in the above description, much of what we understand as culture takes place not consciously or explicitly, but unconsciously and implicitly. Driving a car is a deeply hidden, internalized and habitualized cultural technique that only works because it is automatic and does not cause mental, sensory and physical overload. A change in familiar traffic rules and infrastructures (e.g., due to road works), but also a change to other means of transport, has such a great potential for irritation and feeling overwhelmed, because the culturally unconscious must then be actively adapted and revised (Müller-Funk 2010, p. 17 f.). Indeed, in order to successfully anchor new mobility cultures in people’s everyday life, the desired mobility practices must be learned, lived, and become a matter of course, from the ground up. I would like to illustrate this with a simple example. If you have never cycled to work before and now you start to do so, you will inevitably be confronted with certain challenges, such as:

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

169

• One lacks a realistic idea of how long a commute will take, the best route to take, how to navigate along the way, what to wear in what weather. • One will inevitably lose one’s way, show up late or sweaty for work, get a flat tire, or even injure oneself. • One will get annoyed with inadequate and piecemeal bike infrastructure and traffic processes optimized for car traffic. • One will come into conflict with other road users – like being honked at, tailgated or cut off by cars – breathe in exhaust fumes, weave between cars or at some point swerve onto the sidewalk in annoyance. These or similar experiences are inevitable and are repeatedly described as universals of cycling (Fournel 2019). Nevertheless, in order to facilitate the desired multimodal and flexible mobility behavior and to get people out of their cars in the long run, certain practices and routines need to be embedded in the socialization process of children and adolescents at an early stage (many children do not know how to use the bus or ride a bicycle, or do not know their own way to school). In addition, the inevitable problems and conflicts must also be openly addressed, discussed and mitigated so that new routines can be established. To this end, transport planning must continue to break out of its economically-oriented and engineering-oriented situation, as well as increasingly collaborate in an interdisciplinary manner with other disciplines such as education and socialization research, urban development and housing policy, health research, and also with cultural institutions and sports clubs. Because one thing seems obvious to me: once a user of a certain means of transport, always a user of that means of transport – the aim must be to break down these forces of inertia in the case of automobile use, to shape the transition to using other means of transport, and to remove the initial hurdles on the way to new routines.

4 Conclusion At this point, I want to emphasize that culture is never free-floating or a-historical. In particular, cultural change requires origins and fault lines such as certain everyday practices and meanings that are already being lived out, produced, and refined today. This means that these need to be explored and understood, which in turn emphasizes the need for more qualitative and possibly ethnographically or culturally-­grounded mobility research that seeks to explore and understand subjective perceptions, collective attributions of meaning, media representations, and everyday practices.

170

M. Hoor

For the reasons mentioned above, it cannot be the aim of this paper to construct a concrete idea of what a new mobility culture might look like. This can be determined, for example, by the methods of academic futurology, which point to various paths of development (see Christina Wolking’s contribution in this volume). Instead, I would prefer to emphasize once again the contingency, plurality and contradictory nature of societal processes and developments, which can always involve surprises for transport planning, and counteract it. In this regard, a new mobility culture has to reflect on several contradictory and supposedly irreconcilable tendencies, simultaneously: solidarity and collectivity as well as stubbornness and individuality; use as well as ownership; regulation of car traffic as well as an increase in the attractiveness of environmentally-friendly transport; a clear-cut political stance as well as participation of the population, etc. Every day, new images, narratives and ideas are produced concerning what sustainable mobility could look like in the future whether they come from citizens, initiatives, businesses, academia or politicians; whether it be a covered bike lane, a rigorous redistribution of road space or technological visions of autonomous cars and air taxis. And just as our lives are diverse, so are our ideas of a new mobility culture. We must be prepared to make room for these new notions and ideas, to negotiate them collectively, to legitimize them and to support them – materially as well as symbolically. At both levels, what is needed is a comprehensive about-face from automobile culture: in the extreme case, the car as ‘the new tobacco’ to be collectively eliminated, equipped with warning labels and which we should actually be ashamed to use.4 Instead, what is needed is a culture of the public sphere, togetherness, responsibility and solidarity. This does not mean, however, that there will no longer be room for individuality, demarcation and autonomy – these needs can still be met, as the rise in significance of the bicycle impressively shows. And people will continue to love their cars and cultivate their car culture in the future; it is the structurally anchored and unquestioned rationality and normalization with which automobilism is unilaterally justified – even in cities – that is problematic. To sum up, the foundation of a new mobility culture should be seen as a task for society as a whole, which in my view requires some kind of dual (re)regulation: on the one hand, strict public management and regulation of automobility through infrastructural and regulatory measures, such as a nation-wide speed limit, parking space management, or land redistribution, as well as symbolic and emotional  This is not to diminish the fact that the car is in fact an essential and necessary means of access to areas of basic provision and social participation, especially in rural areas (Kutter 2016). 4

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

171

downgrading – driving a car in everyday urban life has to become unattractive at all levels. At the same time, greater promotion and regulation of environmentally-­ friendly transport is necessary, such as the decriminalization of fare evasion, digital ticketing solutions or, ideally, completely free public transport; a radical revision of the traffic code to meet the needs and everyday practices of cyclists and pedestrians, etc. – all of this coupled with infrastructural measures, such as comprehensive, barrier-free access to public transport as well as sufficiently wide and attractive footpaths and sidewalks. Courage and tolerance for mistakes, but also participatory involvement, as well as real laboratories as test sites can help to make public ­mobility cultures tangible, to create acceptance and to get the people affected and other stakeholders on board in the long term. Transport planning and mobility research can also make a major contribution to this by uncovering, mediating, operationalizing and implementing goal- and stakeholder-­oriented measures on the one hand, and researching existing points of contact and changes on the other – because if you don’t look for a new mobility culture, you won’t find it.

References ADFC. 2019. Auswertung Stadtgrößenklasse: >500.000 Einwohner. ADFC Fahrradklima-­ Test. Berlin: Allgemeiner Deutscher Fahrrad-Club e. V. ADFC. 2018. So geht Verkehrswende – Infrastrukturelemente für den Radverkehr. Berlin: Allgemeiner Deutscher Fahrrad-Club e. V. Ahrend, Christine, S.  Daubitz, O.  Schwedes, U.  Böhme, M.  Herget. 2013. Kleiner Begriffskanon der Mobilitätsforschung. IVP Discussion Paper 1 (Alte Version), Berlin. Aldred, Rachel und K. Jungnickel. 2014. Why culture matters for transport policy: the case of cycling in the UK. Journal of Transport Geography 34: 78–87. Aldred, Rachel. 2010. ‚On the outside‛: constructing cycling citizenship. Social & Cultural Geography 11 (1): 35–52. Augé, Marc. 1995. Non-Places. Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London/New York: Verso Books. Banister, David. 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy 15: 73–80. Baudrillard, Jean. 1968. The System of Objects. London: Verso Books. Becker, Udo. 2018. Verkehr und Umwelt. In Verkehrspolitik: Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. Wiesbaden: Springer. Böhm, Birgit und C. Herzberg. 2020. Bürgergutachten „Mehr Kiez – Weniger Auto: Neue Mobilitätskonzepte für Stadtviertel in Berlin“. Berlin: Mobility2Grid. Boltanksi, Luc und E. Chiapello. 2006. Der neue Geist des Kapitalismus. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Buckel, Sonja und A.  Fischer-Lescano. 2007. Hegemonie gepanzert mit Zwang. Zivilgesellschaft und Politik im Staatsverständnis Antonio Gramscis. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.

172

M. Hoor

Canzler, Weert und J. Radtke. 2019. Der Weg ist das Ziel: Verkehrswende als Kulturwende. Oder: Zur schwierigen Entwöhnung vom Auto. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 43: 33–38. Certeau de, Michel. 1988. Kunst des Handelns. Berlin: Merve Verlag. Chambers, Ian. 1986. Popular Culture. The Metropolitan Experience. London/New York: Routledge. Cox, Peter. 2019. Cycling: A Sociology of Velomobility. London: Routledge. Cox, Peter. 2015. Cycling Cultures. Chester: University of Chester Press. Cyganski, Rita, E. Fraedrich und B. Lenz. 2015. Travel-time valuation for automated driving: A use-case-driven study. Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 11–15. Januar 2015, Washington, USA. Daubitz, Stephan. 2018. Mobilität und Exklusion. In Verkehrspolitik: Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. Wiesbaden: Springer. Deffner, Jutta, K. Götz, S. Schubert, C. Potting, G. Stete, A. Tschann und W. Loose. 2006. Schlussbericht zu dem Projekt „Nachhaltige Mobilitätskultur“. Entwicklung eines integrierten Konzepts der Planung, Kommunikation und Implementierung einer nachhaltigen, multioptionalen Mobilitätskultur. Frankfurt am Main: ISOE. Divall, Colin und G. Revill. 2005. Cultures of transport: representation, practice and technology. Journal of Transport History 26 (1): 99–111. Drechsler, Tom. 2017. Die Radfahrer spinnen. Sie treten, spucken, pöbeln. Sie rasen ohne Helm und Licht. Sie klauen uns die Straße. AutoBild 40. Dziekan, Katrin und Meinhard Zistel. 2018. Öffentlicher Verkehrs. In Verkehrspolitik: Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. Wiesbaden: Springer. Eagleton, Terry. 2000. The Idea of Culture. London: Blackwell Publishing. Engelmann, Jan. 1999. Think different. Eine unmögliche Einleitung. In Die kleinen Unterschiede. Der Cultural Studies Reader, Hrsg. Jan Engelmann. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag. Featherstone, Mike. 2007. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. Los Angeles/New Delhi/ Singapore: Sage Publications. Featherstone, Mike. 2004. Automobilities. An Introduction. Theory, Culture & Society 21 (4–5): 1–24. Fincham, Ben. 2007. Bicycle Messengers: Image, Identity and Community. In Cycling and Society, Hrsg. Dave Horton, P.  Rosen and P.  Cox, 179–195. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. Forsyth, Ann und K.  Krizek. 2011. Urban Design: Is there a Distinctive View from the Bicycle? Journal of Urban Design 16 (4): 531–549. Fournel, Paul. 2019. Need for the Bike. London: Pursuit Books. Furness, Zack. 2005. Biketivism and Technology: Historical Reflections and Appropriations. Social Epistemology 19 (4): 401–417. Furness, Zack. 2010. One Less Car. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press. Gatersleben, Birgitta. 2013. Psychological Motives for Car Use. In Handbook of Sustainable Travel, Hrsg. Tommy Gärling, D. Ettema und M. Friman, 85–94. Dordrecht: Springer. Gehl, Jan. 2010. Cities for People. Chicago: Island Press. Götz, Konrad, Jutta Deffner und Thomas Klinger. 2016. Mobilitätsstile und Mobilitätskulturen  – Erklärungspotenziale, Rezeption und Kritik. In Handbuch Verkehrspolitik, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. Wiesbaden: Springer.

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

173

Grieger, Manfred. 2019. Kleine Geschichte des Automobils in Deutschland. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 43: 19–26. Gramsci, Antonio. 1992. Gefängnishefte. Band 4. Hamburg: Argument. Hadland, Tony und H.-E. Lessing. 2016. Bicycle Design: An Illustrated History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hall, Stuart. 2004. Ideologie, Identität, Repräsentationen. Ausgewählte Schriften 4. Hamburg: Argument. Hall, Stuart. 2000. Cultural Studies. Ein politisches Theorieprojekt. Ausgewählte Schriften 3. Hamburg: Argument. Hoffmann, Melody L. 2016. Bike Lanes Are White Lanes. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hoor, Maximilian. 2020a. Mobilitätskulturen. Über die Notwendigkeit einer kulturellen Perspektive der Verkehrsplanung. IVP Discussion Paper 2020 (1), Berlin. Hoor, Maximilian. 2020b. The bicycle as a symbol of lifestyle, status and distinction. A cultural studies analysis of urban cycling (sub)cultures in Berlin. Applied Mobilities. Holz-Rau, Christian. 2018. Verkehr und Verkehrswissenschaft. In Verkehrspolitik: Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. Wiesbaden: Springer. Horton, Dave, R. Rosen, P. Cox. 2007. Cycling and Society. Hampshire/Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Horton, Dave. 2006. Environmentalism and the bicycle. Environmental Politics 15 (1): 41– 58. Hutchinson, Michael. 2017. Re:Cyclists: 200 Years on two wheels. London/New York: Bloomsbury. Illich, Ivan. 1974. Energy and Equity. New York: Harper & Row. Institute for Mobilities Research (IFMO). 2013. Megacity Mobility Culture: How Cities Move on in a Diverse World. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. Jakobsson, Cecilia. 2007. Instrumental motives for private car use. In Threats to the Quality of Urban Life from Car Traffic: Problems Causes, and Solutions, Hrsg. Tommy Gärling und L. Steg, 205–217. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Jameson, Frederic. 1984. “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” New Left Review 146: 53–92. Jensen, Ole B. 2010 Negotiation in Motion: Unpacking a Geography of Mobility. Space and Culture 13 (4): 389–402. Jensen, Ole B. 2009. Flows of Meaning, Cultures of Movements  – Urban Mobility as Meaningful Everyday Life Practice. Mobilities 4 (1): 139–158. Kidder, Jeffrey L. 2011. Urban Flow: Bike Messengers and the City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Klinger, Thomas, J. R. Kenworthy und M. Lanzendorf. 2013. Dimensions of urban mobility cultures – a comparison of German cities. Journal of Transport Geography 31: 18–29. Knie, Andreas. 2005. Das Auto im Kopf. Die Auswirkungen moderner Verkehrsinfrastruktur auf die Mobilität der Bevölkerung im ländlichen Raum. Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 1: 59–69. Knoflacher, Hermann. 2009. Virus Auto. Die Geschichte einer Zerstörung. Wien: Verlag Carl Ueberreuter.

174

M. Hoor

König, Tim. 2012. In guter Gesellschaft? Einführung in die politische Soziologie von Jürgen Habermas und Niklas Luhmann. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Kutter, Eckhard. 2016. Siedlungsstruktur und Verkehr: Zum Verständnis von Sachzwängen und individueller Verkehrserreichbarkeit in Stadtregionen. In Handbuch Verkehrspolitik, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. Wiesbaden: Springer. Langemeyer, Ines. 2009. Antonio Gramsci: Hegemonie, Politik des Kulturellen, geschichtlicher Block. In Schlüsselwerke der Cultural Studies, Hrsg. Andreas Hepp, F.  Krotz, T. Thomas, 72–82. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The production of space. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Litman, Todd. 2020. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions. Implications for Transport Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, https://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf. Accessed: 19. Juni 2020 Litman, Todd. 2013. The New Transportation Planning Paradigm. ITE Journal 8 (6): 20–27. Lugo, Adonia. 2018. Bicycle/Race. Transportation, Culture, & Resistance. Portland, Oregon: Microcosm Publishing. Lam, Tiffany. 2018. Cycling London: An Intersectional Feminist Perspective. Masterarbeit. LSE Cities, London. Manderscheid, Katharina. 2012. Automobilität als raumkonstituierendes Dispositiv der Moderne. In Die Ordnung der Räume. Henning Füller und B. Michel, 145–178. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Marchart, Oliver. 2008. Cultural Studies. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Miller, Daniel. 2001. Car Cultures. Oxford: Berg Publisher. Mitchell, Don. 2000. Cultural Geography. A Critical Introduction. Oxford/Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publisher Inc. Müller-Funk, Wolfgang. 2007. Die Kultur und ihre Narrative: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Müller-Funk, Wolfgang. 2010. Kulturtheorie. Tübingen: Narr francke Attempto Verlag. Nobis, Claudia. 2019. Mobilität in Deutschland  – MiD Analysen zum Radverkehr und Fußverkehr. Studie von infas, DLR, IVT und infas 360. Bonn, Berlin: Bundesministeriums für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. Nünning, Ansgar und Vera Nünning. 2008. Kulturwissenschaften: Eine multiperspektivische Einführung in einen interdisziplinären Diskussionszusammenhang. In Einführung in die Kulturwissenschaften, Hrsg. Ansgar Nünning und V. Nünning, 1–18. Stuttgart/Weimar: J.B. Metzler. Pucher, John und R. Buehler. 2012. City Cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rammler, Stephan. 2018. Verkehr und Gesellschaft. Verkehrspolitik als Mobilitätsdesign. In Verkehrspolitik: Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. Wiesbaden: Springer. Reents, Edo. 2019. Wider den Fetisch Auto. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 43: 08–11. Rudolph, Frederic, T. Koska und C. Schneider. 2018. Verkehrswende für Deutschland. Der Weg zur CO2-freier Mobilität bis 2035. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie im Auftrag von Greenpeace. Schmidt, Gert. 2018. Automobil und Automobilismus. In Verkehrspolitik: Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. Wiesbaden: Springer. Schwedes, Oliver und Alexander Rammert. 2020. Was ist Integrierte Verkehrsplanung. Hintergründe und Perspektiven einer am Menschen orientierten Planung. IVP Discussion Paper 2020 (2).

7  Public Mobility and a New Mobility Culture: Foundations, Developments…

175

Schwedes, Oliver und M.  Hoor. 2019. Integrated Transport Planning: From Supply- to Demand-Oriented Planning. Considering the Benefits. Sustainability 11, Special Issue “Sustainable Mobility: Interdisciplinary Approaches”. Schwedes, Oliver, Stephan Daubitz, Alexander Rammert, Benjamin Sternkopf und Maximilian Hoor. 2018. Kleiner Begriffskanon der Mobilitätsforschung (Neuauflage). IVP Discussion Paper 1, Berlin. Schwedes, Oliver. 2020. Zur Governance von MaaS: Mobilität erfolgreich steuern. Vortrag auf der Dortmunder Konferenz Raum- und Planungsforschung 2020, Track 6 Mobilität und Verkehr. 17. Februar 2020. Schwedes, Oliver. 2018. Statt einer Einleitung. In Verkehrspolitik: Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes. Wiesbaden: Springer. Schwedes, Oliver. 2017. Verkehr im Kapitalismus. Münster: Dampfboot Verlag. Schwedes, Oliver. 2014. Fazit: Vom Öffentlichen Verkehr zur Öffentlichen Mobilität. In Öffentliche Mobilität, Hrsg. Oliver Schwedes, 241–251. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schweer, Sebastian. 2014. Skateboarding – Zwischen urbaner Rebellion und neoliberalem Selbstentwurf. Bielefeld: Transcript. Sheller, Mimi. 2015. Racialized Mobility Transitions in Philadelphia: Connecting Urban Sustainability and Transport Justice. City & Society 27 (1): 70–91. Sheller, Mimi und J. Urry. 2000. The City and the Car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24: 737–75. Spinney, Justin. 2006. Cycling the City: Non-Place and the Sensory Construction of Meaning in a Mobile Practice. In Cycling and Society, Hrsg. Dave Horton, P. Rosen and P. Cox. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. SRU – Sachverständigenrat Umwelt. 2005. Umwelt und Straßenverkehr. Hohe Mobilität – Umweltverträglicher Verkehr. Sondergutachten. Berlin: Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen. Steg, Linda. 2005. Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research A 39: 147–162. Steg, Lina, C. Vlek, G. Slotegraaf. 2001. Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F 4: 151–169. Stehlin, John. 2019. Cyclespaces of the unequal city. Bicycle infrastructure and uneven development. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnessota Press. Umweltbundesamt. 2019. Veränderungen im Mobilitätsverhalten zur Förderung einer nachhaltigen Mobilität. Abschlussbericht. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt. Umweltbundesamt. 2017a. Die Stadt für Morgen: Umweltschonend mobil  – lärmarm  – grün – kompakt – durchmischt. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt. Umweltbundesamt. 2017b. Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt. Urry, John. 2004. The ‘System’ of Automobility. Theory, Culture & Society 21 (4-5), 25–39. Vivanco, Luis. 2013. Reconsidering the Bicycle: An Anthropological Perspective on a New (Old) Thing. London: Routledge. Wehr, Kevin. 2009. Hermes on Two Wheels: The Sociology of Bicycle Messengers. Lanham et al.: University Press of America. Williams, Raymond. 1981. Culture. Glasgow: Fontana. Williams, Raymond. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fourth Estate Ltd. Williams, Raymond. 1961. The Long Revolution. London: Chatto & Windus.

Part III Current Developments in Public Mobility: New Instruments for the Design of Human-­Centered Transport

8

Legitimizing Public Mobility: The Berlin Mobility Act Jens-Holger Kirchner

Introduction: Impatience Loomed Over Everything, Or: ‘In the Beginning Was the Bicycle’ For many years, bicycle traffic has increased in Berlin – both in absolute and relative terms. Some claim due to municipal policy efforts, others claim despite them. In some areas of the city, bicycle traffic already takes up a perceived 50% share of the roadway, i.e. compared to motor vehicle traffic. Long columns of cyclists and crowding at intersections at peak times illustrate this development. There are even bicycle traffic jams at traffic lights, because not all cyclists manage to cross the intersection while the light is green. There is no doubt that cycling has become attractive in Berlin – for health reasons, practical reasons, no doubt also ecological and lifestyle reasons and, as I have observed, above all to save time. People simply want to get around the city quickly. It is indisputable that the discrepancy between the infrastructure available for safe cycling and the actual number of road users cycling in public space in Berlin has become ever greater. Unfortunately, cycling in Berlin has not become safer in recent years.

J.-H. Kirchner (*) Senate Department for the Environment, Transport and Climate Protection, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_8

179

180

J. H. Kirchner

1 The Time Was Ripe, But It Started Earlier It was not the case that, in order to promote cycling in Berlin, it was necessary to start from scratch. As early as November 2004, the first cycling strategy for Berlin was adopted by the Senate. Strategically, it fitted into the concept of transport development planning for urban-compatible, sustainable and socially-equitable mobility. The implementation of the strategy – albeit slow – had an effect. With the new version of the urban development plan for transport in March 2011, the cycling strategy was pursued via a modified and expanded catalog of measures. Nevertheless, the gap between strategic intent, planning intent and structural implementation – coupled with higher safety requirements and a significantly higher proportion of traffic – continued to widen. Things could not go on like this.

2 Referendum on Bicycles: Draft Law Presented At a time when social conflicts were becoming ever more vociferous, emotional and polarized, with citizens’ initiatives and movements at Monday demonstrations and rallies, and social discourse was suffering increasingly from a culture of accusation and insinuation, the initiative for a referendum on bicycles put a constructive proposal on the table with a detailed draft law and played the keyboard of direct democracy with virtuosity (see the article by Schneidemesser in this volume). They somehow managed to collect well over 100,000 valid signatures within a few days. This speed showed more than clearly how present this issue was in the city and how urgently solutions were needed. In terms of timing strategy, the initiative also fit well into the cycles of transportation policy – in time for the coming elections, but not too early to be forgotten or land in an iteration loop. At the time, politicians and administrators with responsibility in the area did not react particularly confidently. There was no avoiding the impression that the Transportation Senate saw the initiative more as a threat, that the demands of the initiative were seen as too far-reaching and brash, that it was limited to presenting what had (indisputably) been achieved and started so far, and that the interaction ultimately escalated. The cost estimates for implementing the law, for example, differed significantly and gave rise to mutual insinuations and conjectures. There was no trace of the mutual appreciation that of course each demanded from the other, but was apparently not prepared to give. In this confused situation – the Greens and the Left were in the opposition and supported the referendum on bicycles – the roles got mixed up. The Greens in par-

8  Legitimizing Public Mobility: The Berlin Mobility Act

181

ticular were vociferous and prominent in their criticism of the transport senator’s policies. In doing so, they probably forgot that citizens’ initiatives that emerge from the city community have a different role than an opposition party in the parliament. Even a citizens’ initiative should not allow itself to get carried away to the point of overstepping the boundaries (even if provocation and exaggeration unfortunately seem to be part of the tools of the trade of citizens’ initiatives today), and this is all the more unacceptable for a political party in a parliamentary context. The personal attacks by representatives of the bicycle referendum on the transport Senator at the time, Geisel, and his state secretary Gaebler, but also on leading representatives of the transport administration, e.g. in connection with fatal traffic accidents, received more or less open support. They may have generated media attention, but they certainly led to more confrontation and polarization – and just as certainly blocked the possibility of working on a project that was only able to be implemented jointly, despite all the differing views. The mood was ruined and the willingness to compromise verged on zero. The motorists’ lobby and those who did not want any changes for ‘more cycling’ emerged as winners, precisely because nothing had changed. Regardless of this, all political parties made more or less concrete statements in their election programs for a different form of mobility with more or less concrete references to spaces in Berlin itself or in the Berlin-Brandenburg metropolitan region – which was certainly also a result of the public debate about the referendum on cycling.

3 Coalition Negotiations Under the Sign of Modern Mobility After the Berlin state elections on September 18, 2016, it became clear relatively quickly that coalition negotiations would be held between the (weakened) social democrats (SPD), the (strengthened) leftists (Die Linke), and the (also weakened) Greens. While the SPD and Die Linke had already governed together for 10 years, so they knew each other, the situation was new and unfamiliar for the Greens in their new role, especially since their election results were surprisingly weak compared to the pre-election forecasts – in terms of democratic theory, the mandate for a consistent, courageous change in transport was now not so clear. It is noticeable that the transportation section of the coalition agreement1 listed individual projects in great detail – doubtless an expression of a not exactly robust  https://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/regierender-buergermeister/senat/koalitionsvereinbarung/

1

182

J. H. Kirchner

relationship of trust between the future coalition partners, but certainly also the result of existing, precise ideas that had already been worked out and discussed in the community. The struggle to make things concrete, even down to small-scale specifications, was the result of a desire to finally make as much progress as possible in transport policy and not to waste any more time with fine declarations of intent and commissioning more studies. The solid preparations made, for example, by the Pro Straßenbahn (pro streetcar) alliance with its target network planning led to 12 streetcar projects being included directly in the coalition agreement – including planning, construction and completion times. It doesn’t get more concrete than that. There were two thematic approaches to the future mobility law, but they were not linked at the time. On the one hand, it was agreed that the existing public transport law would be further developed into an integrated mobility law – although, ironically, in the agreement itself ‘mobility law’ is still mentioned in quotation marks, as if one was not yet all that sure of its seriousness. Here, reference is already made to the goal of comprehensively reorganizing pedestrian and bicycle traffic. But strategic goals such as environmental connectivity, digitalization, sharing or diversity criteria are also listed. The financial framework, such as the earmarking of funds from the Unbundling Act or the Municipal Financing Act, was also put on record. This was followed by qualitative goal orientations for pedestrian traffic in a separate section – without establishing a connection to the Mobility Act. In another extensive section, however, it was then resolutely listed under the heading “New impulses for cycling suitable for large cities” – which were clearly indebted to the previous discussion in the city about the cycling law – how the coalition would, in a first step, by the spring of 2017 (sic! that was in December 2016 and not only very ambitious, but also completely ignorant of careful legislative processes in a democratic polity, as it quickly turned out) present and introduce a draft law for cycling, how the dialogue with society should be conducted on this matter, and the regulatory framework that had be created for the expansion of the cycling infrastructure: 1 . An alliance for bicycle traffic 2. InfraVelo GmbH, a municipal company as a coordinating body for bicycle traffic 3. Minimum provision of additional human and financial resources for implementation at the state and municipal (district) levels. 4. An additional 40 million euros for 2018 and then 50 million euros as from 2019 exclusively for cycling infrastructure.

8  Legitimizing Public Mobility: The Berlin Mobility Act

183

In addition, another section details which building blocks were to be provided for safe cycling infrastructure (including bike lane networks, safe intersections, physical separation of cycling from other traffic). These specifications in the agreements were to pay off later, since it was possible to insist on their binding character within the parliamentary groups. Conversely, however, it was all the more difficult to push through individual points that were not specified in the coalition agreement. In early December 2016, the coalition agreement was signed and the new government was constituted. The newly formed Senate Department for the Environment, Transport and Climate Protection (SenUVK) quickly put the implementation of the coalition agreement on the agenda and set the organizational and strategic course. To this end, a formal decision had to be made – in addition to the reorganization of the department – as to who would participate in the negotiating group and how the processes of drafting and participation/feedback in the community would be implemented. There was enormous pressure of expectation on the Senate Transportation Department, which was now headed by the Greens. The Greens suddenly had to deliver and meet their own (unrealistic) time demands. This did not proceed without upheavals, even within the party. It was only possible to fulfil the stipulations from the coalition agreement in a sensible fashion by linking them up. The construct of the future mobility law based on the image of a Greek temple portal (see Fig.  8.1) was almost self-evident: a general section for formulating the goals of sustainable, safe, social, barrier-free,

General part objectives, terms, planning tools Sections

Public transport

Bicycle traffic

Pedestrian traffic

Commercial transport

New mobility services + forms of transport

Plan works, regulations, implementing provisions, guidelines

Fig. 8.1  The five pillars of the Berlin Mobility Act. (Source: Own illustration)

184

J. H. Kirchner

city-compatible, ecological (optionally climate-neutral) and people-oriented mobility in the metropolitan region, definitions of terms and the description of planning instruments as a framework and superstructure. Derived from this are the five supporting pillars as sections for public transport, bicycle traffic, pedestrian traffic, commercial traffic and, last but not least, new mobility services and forms of transport (whereby the latter part alone has changed its name several times due to the ongoing deliberations and nationwide debates about new vehicle drive trains, autonomous driving, networked mobility services, etc.). The basis for this body of laws are the plans, ordinances, regulations governing implementation, sets of rules and other provisions, whose solid foundations are inevitably required for implementation, in order to make the building legally stable in the long term and not cause it to collapse. Without controversy, although not without criticism, legal regulations for public transport were developed first of all in this confused situation because of the existing public transport law, which was due to expire, and legal regulations for cycling because of the enormous pressure of expectations from the public – supplemented by the section on more general matters. The legal regulations for pedestrian traffic, commercial traffic and the new mobility services and forms of transport were then to supplement the law in the following years – for capacity reasons, but also because the concept of integrated commercial traffic was still being developed at the time and the need for legal regulation could only be ascertained once the concept was worked out. Throughout the legislative process, various interested parties called for a section on motorized private transport to be included. This was not complied with. Firstly, because aspects of private car use will be dealt with in the upcoming module on new mobility services and forms of transport (e.g. car sharing or autonomous driving). On the other hand, because business aspects, e.g. delivery traffic, are considered in the section on commercial transport. In addition, automobile traffic is comprehensively regulated in the Road Traffic Act, the Berlin Road Act and in nationwide guidelines. It was repeatedly emphasized that the Mobility Act is intended, among other things, to create a new balance between modes of transport and to regulate bicycle traffic and public transport via formal legislation, measures that have long been taken for granted for automobile traffic. As early as February 2017, the negotiation group was constituted at the invitation of the Senator for Transport, led and moderated throughout by the then State Secretary for Transport and supported organizationally and editorially by colleagues from the Center for Local Transport as an external service provider. Participants in this negotiation group were representatives of the transport department of SenUVK and the Senate Chancellery as well as representatives of the referendum on cycling (Volksentscheid Fahrrad), the Berlin branch of the German

8  Legitimizing Public Mobility: The Berlin Mobility Act

185

Bicycle Club and the Berlin chapter of Friends of the Earth. From the Berlin Parliament, two representatives from each of the government factions SPD, Die Linke and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen were in the negotiation group. The group met a total of 12 times between March and June, sometimes every week and late into the night. It was agreed to work out guidelines/key points on the basis of the draft law submitted by the Volksentscheid Fahrrad and to draft the bill on this basis. Setting up various smaller working groups, each of which prepared proposals for the next meeting of the negotiating group, was extremely helpful. A common thread running through the negotiations in the group was the lack of trust on the part of the initiatives and associations vis-à-vis the administration and parts of the government (albeit to varying degrees) – coupled with their pronounced lack of knowledge about planning, construction and administrative processes, but also with little willingness to recognize federal regulations. The administration’s own not terribly pronounced willingness to accept the associations and the initiative as partners on an equal footing was complemented by an unfamiliarity with the culture of discussion and the communication style of the initiatives and organisations involved. Adding to the atmosphere was the lack of trust among the coalition partners, coupled with scrutinizing each and every proposal to determine whether it had only put forward in order to harm those to whom it was addressed. Against this backdrop, more than once it was necessary to remind the negotiating group of the common goal, to insist on professional distance and constructiveness, and to advocate that each participant not only take responsibility for the content of the legislative initiative, but also for adherence to the specified time horizon. This tension remained eminently formative right to the end – loudly criticizing the repeated delays, but passionately discussing an issue for hours, where the equation ‘the importance of the detail is in inverse proportion to the duration of the discussion’ often applied. The entire legislative initiative – not just the phase of deliberations in the negotiating group – was under pressure from the time constraints enshrined in the coalition agreement. Withstanding this pressure and delivering solid work – even if it took longer than imagined – was not easy. And it was to turn out that drafting such a law without an applicable model, without a blueprint in terms of content, but also without a procedural blueprint, including broad participation by the community and including serious treatment by the constitutional bodies of the state of Berlin simply takes time, and from mid-February 2017 to mid-July 2018  – viewed soberly – it was accomplished extremely intensively and rapidly in a period of not even 1.5 years. It couldn’t have gone any faster, and if it had, the procedure or even the law itself would have been open to attack. Time and again, it was apparent that, out of an obvious lack of knowledge about deadlines, processes and about the par-

186

J. H. Kirchner

ties whose involvement was mandatory, the formula was put forward: guidelines ready, draft law no problem, decision tomorrow, implementation on the street as of today. In some cases, the parties involved had to be reminded that there is a requirement for due diligence and examination of the legal consequences, that there is participation on the part of associations, co-signing requirements, a council of the district mayors, and a legislative assembly – the Berlin parliament. Interestingly, as of mid-2017, i.e. already a year earlier, there were many demands in the city that the still incipient regulations from the Mobility Act should be implemented straight away. This de facto anticipation of a normative force also showed how urgently these legal regulations were expected – and what a high priority the law already had before it had even come into force. From a technical point of view, one of the main tasks of the negotiating group was to sort through the diverse, almost unmanageable, sometimes very detailed proposals and ideas to determine whether they had to - or could - be anchored in the law, could be regulated in the cycling plan or other plans, or should be included in ordinances or in regulations governing implementation – or whether an initiative from the Federal Senate was needed, for example, to amend the Traffic Code. This took some time to convince everyone around the table. Every centimeter, every concrete qualitative, but especially every quantitative specification was passionately argued over. Especially here, what became clear and difficult to reconcile were the very different ideas of binding stipulations, to be enshrined in the law: 10 safe intersections per year, rebuild 20–30 per year in the following years, minimum width of bicycle lanes of 2 m in a built urban environment, build 100 km of – protected - bicycle lanes per year, install 100,000 bicycle stands, and so on. Also certain definitions – e.g. a priority network for bicycle traffic – were argued about intensively and persistently, partly also talking at cross purposes, because some understood a network of traffic routes with priority for bicycle traffic, others rather a network of traffic routes, to be converted for bicycle traffic as a priority, because they are in a particularly bad condition and/or are particularly unsafe at present. This cost time. Other points, such as the anchoring of Vision Zero2 as a strategic-normative goal, the procedure to be followed after particularly serious accidents, structures such as the legal anchoring of the FahrRat (cycling council) as an advisory body, a coordination office for cycling or the Alliance for Cycling, but also such practical matters as authorizing the BVG (Berlin Transport Authority) to tow away vehicles parked on bus lanes, were quickly resolved, without controversy. And it was a  This is an initiative that aims to reduce deaths and injuries caused by traffic accidents to zero. 2

8  Legitimizing Public Mobility: The Berlin Mobility Act

187

learning process for the entire negotiating group to transform the focus on cycling (which had been strongly influenced by the previous history) into a law for all road users, in which cycling ‘only’ constitutes one section. Other points, such as the anchoring of individually-felt traffic safety as a planning goal, were undisputed in terms of content, but it remained unclear for a long time how the collectively supported acid test for every planning measure, namely the question: ‘Would you let your eight-year-old child ride/walk here alone?’ could be enshrined in law. It became clear that the best technical and spatial traffic safety standards are of little use if road users still feel unsafe.

4 Participation Makes Things Better The guidelines were presented and discussed in the Mobility Advisory Board, which was expanded specifically for the purpose of drafting the Mobility Act. The Advisory Board has existed for years and its very broad composition (mobility associations, the Berlin Transport Authority, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the police, various senate administrations, some districts, representatives from the parties in the Berlin Parliament…) advises the Senate Department for Transport, e.g. in the development of the Urban Development Plan Mobility and Transport (StEPMoVe). So it was an obvious choice to use the Board for intensive communication, precise information and broad participation and to expand it by including associations of disabled people and senior citizens. Afterwards, the first building blocks for a draft bill were formulated, although this process was not linear, but rather the individual sections and paragraphs were compiled in a fragmentary manner, without losing sight of the cross-references and interrelationships. The text of the so-called draft bill was finalized in a smaller group and, after ‘release’ by the negotiating group, fed into an informal participation round in which various Senate administrations were asked for comments and advice. The main features of the draft bill were also presented and discussed again in the Mobility Advisory Council. An (early) participation of various associations was also facilitated. The resulting numerous (almost 800) comments and suggestions from all directions – professional and party-political – were discussed, accepted, modified and weighed up in various individual meetings with those who had submitted them. As a result, the law became better structured, more non-­ discriminatory, more precise in its formulations and more practice-oriented in its application. For example, the regulation to follow a procedure to eliminate the causes of accidents in the case of serious accidents involving cyclists has been extended to cover all road users, and moved to the general section.

188

J. H. Kirchner

After a further revision and consideration of the comments received, and with an adjustment of its internal logic, the bill was then ready for the official co-signing procedure, before being introduced in the Senate. In this process, all Senate administrations are asked to co-sign the bill, which is done with or without annotations. At the same time, various individual meetings were held with the departments involved in order to smoothly incorporate the concerns of these departments or to agree on other arrangements (e.g. a parallel initiative in the upper house of the Federal Parliament, calling for higher fines). Since most of the points had already been clarified in advance, the preparation of the referral to the Senate, including an executive meeting between the governing mayor and the senator to reach a final decision on a few contentious points (e.g., the anchoring of the right of associations to sue or the authorization for the BVG to remove vehicles parked in bus lanes), was carried out very quickly  – within 2–3 weeks – so that the first referral to the Senate generated media attention, but was de facto ‘merely’ a formality. The next stage in the legislative process was initiated by its presentation in the Council of District Mayors. The Berlin districts (unfortunately or fortunately?) were not able to agree on a joint statement when dealing with the draft law, so that there were partly extensive, but also contradictory statements from each district. Again, various individual discussions with the districts followed in order to discuss and better understand their comments and, if necessary, to include them in the draft law. In a second reading in the Council of Mayors, the further amended version of the draft law was presented and information was provided about the adopted and rejected amendments. This amended version of the bill was then passed by the Senate in the second reading and passed on to the lower house of the Parliament for consideration and a vote. Despite all the time pressure, which also came from the ranks of the parliament itself, the parliament took its time to give the representatives of the different ‘camps’ the opportunity to present their positions once again in two committee hearings (transport and economy). All those heard appreciated the extremely intensive participation process up to that point, even if nothing of substance was added to the (familiar) positions. In the subsequent debate at the next committee meeting, the positions of the government and opposition parties that had been expressed to that point were also presented, the amendments submitted by the government faction were adopted, and the opposition amendments were all rejected. A real exchange or even a constructive debate no longer took place, which was certainly also due to some motions from the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland), which, for example, with one of its suggested amendments, proposed deleting the entire section on public transport, because there was already a law regulating public transport.

8  Legitimizing Public Mobility: The Berlin Mobility Act

189

The bill was then dealt with in another meeting of the main committee, before it was discussed again in the second reading in the plenary session of the Berlin Parliament on June 28, 2018, with a great debate in which the now familiar positions were once again publicly presented. The bill was then passed by a majority, with the votes of the coalition factions against the votes of the opposition factions. This was preceded by rather discreet negotiations between a few representatives of the government coalition, in which the points still in dispute up to that point were finally discussed and resolved: a compromise formula for the appropriate consideration of automobile traffic in the preamble, the anchoring of the right of a­ ssociations to sue, was omitted. However, the authorization for the BVG to tow away vehicles illegally parked in bus lanes was reinstated. For those who were extremely impatient, the legislative process now seemed to be completed. Nevertheless, it took several more weeks for the law to come into effect. It was drafted on July 5, promulgated on July 9, and then finally came into force on July 17, 2018, when it was published in the Official Gazette as the “Act on the Revision of Statutes for the Provision of Mobility” (only lawyers can formulate something like that).

5 Looking Back to the Future In retrospect, now 5 years later, the entire development, from the initiative for a referendum on bicycles, to the submitted draft law to the coalition negotiations and the legislative process for a Berlin mobility law, was a prime example of lively, constructively designed processes of democratic negotiation. This explicitly includes controversy and is proof of the socially transformative power that democratically conducted discourse can unleash. Whenever it is possible to agree on a common goal, to deal with each other in a halfway decent manner, to show consideration and to communicate openly to the community, it not only makes parliamentary majorities possible, but also, in the best case, the real conditions in the city can change – even, and perhaps for a reason, in Berlin in particular. Legislative processes with such depth of participation cost time, energy and resources. Worlds collide. In this context, the development of an atmosphere of trust is of great importance – in terms of time, energy and organization. It had been possible to transform the initial confusion into a core fusion. Thus, a lot of energy was released and created a law that did not exist before. The atmosphere was always brittle and required special attentiveness. Negotiations to the point of exhaustion, emotional gaffes, misunderstandings, breaches of trust, ‘thunderstorms’ to clear the air, but also moments of genius accompanied the negotiation and legisla-

190

J. H. Kirchner

tive process and should not be underestimated in terms of the effort required and their importance for the success of such an undertaking – pure relationship work. In the process, all those involved underwent a process of change – especially in their respective understandings of their roles. Opposition parties were suddenly in government and had to deliver (in fulfillment of their own demands) or justify their positions in government. The initiative was suddenly part of the system and had to defend the jointly developed draft to a critical public. Their own notions of openness and the public sphere led to ‘disclosure activism’ and resulted in a severe crisis of confidence that at times called into question the entire legislative process. And the administration often found itself in the dichotomy of supporting the content of many of the law’s regulations and finding them worthy, but having to assess the concrete implementation in many instances as rather excessive, based on knowledge of the scarce resources available, but also of the effective power of the Federal road traffic regulations.

6 Conclusion: Impatience Remains Necessary It is almost too early to assess what such a law will now accomplish in practice. All current road construction plans have been revised. The 50 million euros per year in the coalition agreement have been made available but cannot be disbursed all that quickly. A start has been made on some things, such as the color marking of existing bicycle pathways or the planning of the bike highways by the newly founded InfraVelo GmbH.  The cycling coordination office has been set up and staffed. Several building blocks in the implementation structures are still open, were not yet or only partially able to be implemented. The positions for cycling planners are still not completely filled in all districts. Some districts have developed bicycle lane network plans. The cycling plan, the network plans, the regular plans are not yet ready. Even the Alliance for Cycling, the coordinating and working body meant to accelerate construction, is still in its infancy. At least the pedestrian traffic section is now going through the procedure. The other two sections are still pending. The law has created the framework. Implementation in the entire metropolitan region, and this should be clear to everyone, will not be possible within one and a half years. But a little more impatience and speed is definitely needed. The law alone is not enough.

9

Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility Financing in Public Transport Oliver Mietzsch

1 Introduction The emergence of integrative planning approaches to better capture the phenomenon of public mobility not only raises the question of suitable tools of measurement to describe the complexity of the movement of people in space and time. Rather, it also results in entirely new requirements in the field of governance, i.e., the immaterial and material contextual conditions of mobility. The immaterial contextual conditions include the ethical justifications for the organization of mobility that are located in the historical context, as well as the patterns of action and routines that have emerged from them, i.e., the mobility culture (see Hoor’s contribution in this volume). The material contextual conditions, i.e. the legal framework, the organizational distribution of responsibilities and the financing instruments derived from them, are not detached from this. In the following, these interrelationships will be examined in more detail, taking public mobility as an example, and suggestions for a different way of financing public transport will be made.

O. Mietzsch (*) ium – Institut für urbane Mobilität, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_9

191

192

O. Mietzsch

2 Mobility and Transport The public sector is the main funding source of urban mobility. This is true with regard to operations (especially public transportation) and to an even greater extent regarding transport infrastructure. While the financing of the operating costs of streetcars, underground rail, light rail systems or buses often takes place within the framework of the municipal corporate taxation system (offsetting the profits and losses of public utilities), the transport infrastructure (roads, track and maintenance facilities of local public transport operators) is financed directly out of tax revenue by the Federal government (Municipal Transport Financing Act), the governments of the federal states (so-called unbundling funds) and the municipalities (e.g. within the framework of the municipal corporate taxation system). The percentage paid by the users of the municipal road infrastructure in Germany is rather limited (in addition to revenues from residents’ parking regulations, special user fees for the use of sidewalks and parking fees should be mentioned here)1 in contrast to the average fare revenue deriving from public transport passengers, which amounts to approximately 75.6% of the total costs (VDV 2018). However, despite the relatively large share of the user-pays principle in public transport, financing by the responsible regional authorities is still quite substantial, regarding the several funding instruments that are largely financed from the public purse, such as compensation for discounted transport for school children and trainees, free transport for handicapped people, discounted tickets for socially disadvantaged persons, or compensation payments for revenue losses of transport companies in the context of tariff integration within traffic groups. For the operating costs of regional trains, the Federal government pays an annual compensation of currently around €8.4 billion to the federal states, which themselves commission rail operators either directly or via local or regional transport authorities, by way of public tender. As a result, the system of public financing of local public transport in Germany is rather non-­ transparent and complex by international standards. Far too often, the term mobility is used, but what is meant is transport. While the concept of mobility refers to the opportunities available to an individual for getting

 According to GebOSt, a parking permit for a car in Germany may cost a maximum of 30.70 € per year. German car parking fees are very moderate compared with other countries. Residents in Paris, for example, pay €45 per year (and €90 for 3 years). Electric cars or gaspowered vehicles are exempt. In London, the fee is €165, in Amsterdam €535 and in Stockholm €827. Cf. https://www.agora-verkehrswende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2017/Parkraummanagement/Parkraummanagemet-lohnt-sich_Agora-Verkehrswende_web.pdf. Accessed: 08/11/2020. 1

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

193

from place to place, the concept of transport describes the actual changes in location. Thus, transport represents the dependent variable, i.e., without technical devices for overcoming distance and time, the concept of mobility remains an empty phrase. Conversely, however, a fixation on location changes without any ­consideration of the context in which they occur is just another facet of positivism.2 This contradiction becomes obvious in the daily political debate about the distribution of limited financial resources. The advocates of a comprehensive concept of mobility, referring to the challenges to the organization and financing of transport posed by climate change and demographic development, point out that the modes of public transport, i.e. primarily bus and rail, must be improved at the expense of motorized individual transportation (MIV). In contrast, the apologists of the “juste milieu”3 insist on the prevailing mobility patterns, dominated by cars, as the sole and decisive criterion of financial allocations. However, all too often the question of where the resources needed to secure mobility, whether individually or collectively, actually come from remains unaddressed. Just as the aphorism about electricity coming out of the wall socket reflects only half the truth, transport funding does not come solely from tax revenues. And even if the total tax revenues of the Federal, State and local governments were sufficient to meet all mobility needs, the question still remains whether this should be the case in a moral sense. Anyone who categorically distinguishes between mobility and transport recognizes the difference: mobility funding involves the material safeguarding of opportunities to act, i.e. transport options, while transport funding, i.e. the infrastructural and operating resources required, already implies a decision in favor of a particular mode of transport. Financing the latter only through taxes means advocating economically and ecologically inefficient supply planning, without regard to whether the transport routes financed by the public actually benefit everyone.

 Term for a position according to which the real sciences should confine themselves to the study of observable facts (“positives”). The founder is Hume; the notion itself goes back to Comte, who formulated the three-stage law of scientific development: (1) theological stage: real phenomena are attributed to the action of a god or gods; (2) metaphysical stage: grasping the general essence of things (essentialism); (3) positive stage (highest): description of facts. A radical empiricism can be interpreted as a naive-positivist position; its characteristics consist in the mere accumulation of facts and the formulation of hypotheses close to experience, while the search for general theories is neglected. Cf. https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/ definition/positivismus-46391. Accessed 03.08.2020. 3  On the change of meaning of the term on several occasions, compare Bednarz, L. ‘Wie die Moralkritik zur Pose wird’ Der Tagesspiegel, https://causa.tagesspiegel.de/kolumnen/lianebednarz/wie-die-moralkritik-zur-pose-wird.html. Accessed: 01.08.2020. 2

194

O. Mietzsch

3 Beneficiaries’ Involvement in Funding as a New Approach: The Political and Theoretical Rationale The user-pays principle has been known for a long time in MIT (motorized individual transport): in the case of municipal and city streets, municipalities can impose recoupment charges for the initial construction (development) as well as for the expansion or improvement or fundamental renewal or subsequent construction of road infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 of the German Building Code (BauGB) or the municipal duty regulation of the federal states (KAG). In both cases, the basis for the recoupment charge is property, i.e., the extent to which a property is involved in or affected by the development or expansion measures; the property owner’s financial contribution is assessed accordingly. The legal justification is to be found in what is known as public use,4 In other words, in the collective right to use the public road infrastructure: “The content of the public use in its details is subject to continuous change over time. In addition to dedication, what matters is common usage; public convenience, on the other hand, i.e., ensuring unlimited use by anyone, is not seen as an element of public use, but as a concept of road traffic law” (Hegelau 1994, p. 16). In other words, even those who do not own or drive a motorized vehicle can be called upon to contribute to funding the construction or improvement of municipal roads, since the mere existence of the infrastructure entitles them to use it. If this applies to the use of roads, why not also to the use of buses and trains? The answer is simple: local public transportation5 is quite simply missing from the definition of the provision of infrastructure in Section 127 of the BauGB or the relevant paragraphs in the KAG of the federal states. One can only speculate as to why this is the case. Most likely it has something to do with the period in question. In the early 1970s, when legislators first responded to the growing ­automobilization  Public use is a legal concept dating back to Roman law (usus publicus), which is still used today primarily in road traffic law. Public use is the right of a large number of people to use things that serve the public good  – in contrast to the right of ownership and possession, which regulates the use of things only by certain individual persons. Thus, unlike property, public use is not an individual right, but a collective right. The main consequence of this is that the person entitled to public use cannot exclude from use another person who is also entitled to public use. In road traffic law, the dedication defines the legal framework of use. 5  In contrast to regional rail passenger transport (SPNV), which includes heavy rail and is subject to a completely different legal and funding regime, municipal road-based public transport (ÖSPV), which also includes the track-based systems of streetcars, light rail, underground rail and trolleybuses, is financed primarily from general tax revenue in addition to user contributions from passengers (fare revenue). 4

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

195

and the accompanying decline in public transport use with the Municipal Transport Financing Act  – GVFG  – a petroleum tax-based financial instrument to expand municipal transport infrastructure, including public transportation (Deutsch et al. 2016, p. 3), there was simply no awareness of the need for a permanent funding source for municipal transport. This lack of foresight, which incidentally is also reflected in ignoring the decline in geographical distance as a hindrance, which is linked to tax-financed infrastructure funding and, as a reaction to this, the reduction in local trips, “which is reflected, for example, in the decline of local shopping options, especially outside the high-density areas of large cities” (ibid.). These observations already prompted Apel et al. (1995, p. 13) to call for spatial policies including traffic-reducing measures such as, among other things, the extension of mandatory public transport development, the abolition of the parking space requirement for motorized vehicles in residential areas, to be accompanied by additional housing policy measures and, last but not least, the introduction of a heavy goods vehicle tax and the amendment of the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan. The state was seen as the ‘natural’ provider of infrastructure until the middle of the twentieth century. With the advent of the so-called New Public Management however, the provision of infrastructure by the state has come under increasing justification pressure. In the European Union, this is also due to the decreasing fiscal scope of action of the states within the framework of compliance with the so-­ called Maastricht criteria as well as, in general, to the increasingly competitive environment in the European single market (cf. the introduction by Schwedes in this volume). However, one has to ask whether infrastructure systems can be clearly assigned to certain categories of goods such as public goods, i.e. usable by everyone, or private and thus proprietary use. The theoretical concept of the ‘club good’ as a mixture of private and public ownership therefore more accurately describes grid-bound (transport) infrastructure systems, which manifest themselves in so-­ called ‘network effects’ such as the accessibility of stops, waiting times and trip duration and which are of great importance in terms of willingness to pay and competitiveness in intermodal competition. Against this background, the relevance of the club goods theory is particularly evident in the financing of public transportation (Lehmann and Rodi 1997, p. 11 ff.). The degree of rivalry in club goods, which depends on the elasticity of use, directs attention to the cost of providing transport infrastructure, which in turn reflects the positive and negative externalities present in the public transport market. ‘Normative principles’ have emerged in finance for this purpose. Against this background, price (user/beneficiary charge), club size and/or the quantity or quality of the goods provided serve as mechanisms to adjust and bring the supply of public transport infrastructure into alignment with the intensity of use. Due to the fact that

196

O. Mietzsch

there is no rivalry in the use of track-based public transport infrastructure in cities until a certain capacity limit is reached,6 a combination of different charges makes sense, which consist of flat-rate, fixed cost-based contributions and marginal cost-­ based contributions, depending on individual use. In the area of (road) construction or development, this mix of fixed and flexible public transport infrastructure charges corresponds to the municipal share, i.e., the share that is attributed to through traffic and that is therefore not included in assessing the individual charge. With regard to the economic rationale, the inefficiency of excluding people from free use of the public transport infrastructure automatically leads to the issue of imposing user charges, i.e. involving the beneficiaries of public transport infrastructure in funding it. For reasons related to the theory of democracy, this requires state regulation (cf. the contribution by Schwedes and Ringwald in this volume). Local authorities are particularly apt for this purpose. “If one looks at public sector allocations and considers which funding instruments are used in each case, one comes to an astonishing conclusion: the state does not need taxes … for these tasks – above all, for the provision of infrastructure – but merely earmarked, compulsory charges imposed on different groups” (Grossekettler 1991, p. 18). For Sander (1987, p. 151), the core area of municipal activity today is the provision of club collective goods and goods of natural monopolies. This corresponds to the priority enshrined in the German constitutional framework of funding instruments based on individual equivalence (fees and charges) over financing municipal tasks by means of public taxation. In this sense, fees, or in the case of public transport, fare revenues, serve to compensate for the additional cost of use and therefore primarily cover the (economically) marginal costs of provision. Charges that exceed these marginal costs make no sense from a welfare-economic point of view, because users would then be deterred from using the club (collective) good, even though this would provide benefits that could be achieved free of marginal costs. However, the concept of economic costs is broader, so that the pricing of the club (collective) good for track-bound public transport infrastructure must also take into account the decision not to use it, due to overcrowding and congestion. Therefore, infrastructure pricing must take into account both elasticity of use, i.e., the available service capacity, and elasticity of quantity, i.e., cost degressions resulting from the indivisibility of infrastructure assets. From  Leap-fixed costs are costs that remain constant within a certain range of a cost and change abruptly in their amount by crossing sides of the interval. They are attributed to changes in operational capacity. For example, the expansion of machinery causes depreciation to increase by leaps and bounds. https://www.wirtschaftslexikon24.com/d/sprungfixe-kosten/ sprungfixe-kosten.htm. Accessed 07.08.2020. 6

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

197

this, following Grossekettler (1991, p. 9), the conclusion can be drawn that a supplementary (use-dependent) financial contribution should be imposed on club members whenever the marginal cost does not cover the full cost per member: “This charge can be regarded as an optional price for being allowed to use the respective good at the marginal cost price (ibid.).” In terms of German constitutional law, this basic idea corresponds to the charge that serves to finance the remaining, i.e., fixed costs, since it is based on the optional benefit. In terms of public transportation, this means that fare revenues primarily cover the costs of infrastructure management, while financial contributions from beneficiaries of track-based public transport infrastructure facilities primarily serve to cover the costs of infrastructure provision. Knieps (2002, p. 11) is in favor of using the revenues from the use of network capacities to finance the network infrastructure: “It therefore makes perfect economic sense to relate the allocation problem of scarce capacities and the problem of financing the network infrastructure. However, this should not lead to the reverse conclusion of allocating infrastructure costs based on usage on infrastructures with low demand, because this would completely discourage the remaining demand.”

4 Charges as a Funding Instrument In contrast to taxes  – the constitutional foundations of which are found in Art. 105 ff. GG with the principal competence at the Federal level; the federal states have a legislative competence only with regard to local taxes on expenditure and consumption – the Basic Law (Constitution) does not contain an explicit provision for fees and charges, which are also referred to as “preferential burdens”. “Because of its character, the law on fees and charges has since been regarded by case law and literature as ‘annexation law’” (Klusemann 1998, p. 29). The basis of competence for the “preferential burdens” is the respective subject matter. Municipalities are thus limited to the types of municipal taxes prescribed by law; consequently, only taxes that are legally determined or determinable may be levied. In accordance with Article 105 (2) a of the Basic Law and Section 3 of the General Tax Code (AO), which is based on this, an independent municipal right to levy taxes is only found with regard to the so-called small municipal taxes or petty taxes, which relate to local expenditure or consumption. In the case of recoupment charges for development and road construction, for example, the statutory requirement for municipal taxes is concretized in that the municipalities have a duty to impose such charges, i.e. a road construction measure that is eligible for being financed by recoupment charges may not be adopted

198

O. Mietzsch

­ ithout the contribution statutes required for imposing the charges having first w been issued. Following the reunification of Germany on October 3, 1990, the Bundestag7 and the Bundesrat8 set up a Joint Constitutional Commission at the end of 1991 to discuss and submit proposals for necessary or desirable amendments and additions to the Basic Law in accordance with Article 5 of the Unification Treaty of August 31, 1990. In connection with the reform of federalism, which had already been called for at the time but had been only rudimentarily implemented, the law on recoupment charges according to Section 127 BauGB was explicitly excluded from the canon of concurrent legislation under Article 74 of the Basic Law and thus assigned to the sole legislative competence of the federal states. At the same time, however, Article 125a of the Basic Law stipulates that law which has been enacted as Federal law but can no longer be enacted as Federal law due to subsequent amendments to the Basic Law, continues to apply as Federal law. It can, however, be repealed and supplemented by law at the federal state level. In this context, it is controversial whether the Federal government can continue to amend the law on recoupment charges according to Section 127 BauGB with effect for the federal states that have not yet enacted their own regulations on the levying of contributions by the municipalities, e.g., with regard to expanding the definition of ‘facility’ to include public transportation. Some authors argue that a subsequent amendment of the Federal regulations in this regard is no longer possible due to a de facto ‘fossilization’ effect that would occur as a result of the transfer of §§ 127–135 BauGB, which were previously subject to concurrent legislation, to the area of exclusive legislative competence of the federal states (Hilgers 2012, p. 5.) As a consequence, the Federal legislature itself could no longer undertake an extension of the term “facility” in this respect. And the possibility for municipalities to impose charges for facilities that are not part of a new development within the meaning of this section of the BauGB, which is structured as an option in Section 127 (4) of the BauGB, does not constitute an independent legal basis for imposing levies. This could only result from another law, in particular the KAG issued by the federal states (Grziwotz 2012, § 127 Rdnr. 25). However, this view conflicts with the provision of Article 125a (1) of the Basic Law, which, beyond the wording, gives the Federal government the possibility to update the provisions that continue to apply as Federal law in cases where the Federal government’s legislative competence no longer exists, inter alia, due to the amendment of Article 74 (1) of the Basic Law. Accordingly, the Federal government’s competence ends only when one or all of the federal states have made use  German Federal Parliament  Chamber of the Federal States

7 8

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

199

of their new legislative competence – and only with respect to that individual state (Jarass and Pieroth 2007, marginal note 7 on Art. 125a GG). This view is not without a certain logic, since in cases where a federal state has not (yet) made use of its new powers for whatever reason, the Federal government would otherwise not be in a position, for example, to adjust the legal situation in the event of a change in circumstances. In this respect, the opinion is expressed that – as long as no deviating regulations have been issued by the federal states – the Federal legislator also has the possibility to change the definition of what counts as a ‘facility’ in § 127 BauGB. However, the federal states would be free to refrain from doing so after enacting their own respective legal regulation (Heckmann 1997, p. 284 f.).

5 Traffic Development and Accessibility Parameters as an Equivalent to Public Use If public use is recognized as a legal prerequisite for the levying of road charges detached from the actual, concrete use of the roads, the question arises as to why this cannot also be the case in track-based public transportation. The main difference rests with the notion of accessibility. In principle, a road can be used by anyone; in addition to its importance as infrastructure for individual traffic, it also serves to transport goods and, depending on its designation, can also have a residential function (a street in which children can play). On the other hand, a rail-track is of no use to anyone without a vehicle on it, so that for safety reasons alone, access is only possible at designated points (streetcar stops, traffic stations). It should also be noted that, in comparison to road construction, public transport development involves a much higher proportion of running costs and thus higher follow-up costs for the municipality and – in contrast to facilities for the supply and disposal of water etc. – if the legal obligation to develop infrastructure were extended to public transport, there could be no expectation that the additional services would be used in a safe manner (Apel et al. 1995, p. 93). Apel et al. (1995, p. 94) therefore advocate that new infrastructure for public and private transportation should not be considered separately and that it should also be taken into consideration that additional expenditure for public transport is a priori borne by the municipality, “while savings in individual motorized transportation associated with this at the same time benefit the private sector, at least in terms of reduced parking space requirements and lower vehicle operating costs”. But even then, the usability of the public transportation facility is not automatically a given without an actual transportation service.

200

O. Mietzsch

The connection to the public transport network is beneficial for those who are thereby offered an adequate transport alternative in managing the routes that they regularly travel. However, this does not automatically occur with the establishment of a bus-­ stop (or similar) near the place of residence. Such a ‘connection’ to public transport is not sufficient in itself as a transport option, since transport is not location-related but a vectorial (directed) variable. (Maak 1998, p. 147)9

According to this, all regular routes are characterized by both a starting point (source) and an endpoint (destination). Only if both points are served by public transport via an adequate direct connection one can speak of an additional, beneficial transportation alternative. “The connection of the place of residence to the public transport network initially only covers the source of traffic. However, if the regular destination is outside the area served by public transport, the value of the transportation facility for the specific case verges on zero. Thus, the potential use of public transport depends not only on the place of residence but also, to the same extent, on the destination” (ibid). In this respect, public transport, and especially rail- or track-bound public transport, differs significantly from individual transport. “The essential characteristic of the railroad (here it is considered as pars pro toto for all track-bound transport systems, O.M.) is […] the technical unity of track and means of transport. This ‘mechanical ensemble’, which offers no spontaneously chosen alternatives, is only suitable for individual transport to a very limited extent” (Schmitz 2001, p. 35). Thus, there is a need for parameters of accessibility that can be measured quantitatively in terms of accessibility to the public transport system, e.g., in the form of the walking distance to the nearest public transport stop, as well as parameters that can be described qualitatively in terms of the quality of a certain accessibility offered by this stop in the public transport network (Köhler 2011, p.  666).10 Both parameters relate to the overcoming of space and time and must therefore be examined in the context of social and settlement development. Interestingly, the travel time budget, i.e., the amount of time required to cover a distance, has not changed  The author refers to the reprint of the lecture by Gerd Steierwald; Aspekte der regionalen Verkehrsentwicklung, bei der Verbandsversammlung des Regionalverbandes Stuttgart am 17.04.1991, p. 16. 10  The author describes the accessibility of a destination from a source location in terms of both travel time by a particular mode of transport and the number of recreational opportunities. To measure accessibility quality, at least two modes of transportation (usually an individual mode and a public mode) are compared in terms of travel time. Accessibility quality is then assessed by comparing the absolute travel times of both modes between source and destination, the travel time ratio of the two modes to each other, and the relative provision of recreational opportunities at the destination. 9

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

201

significantly over time, but distances certainly have. In transport research, this is referred to as the “constancy of the travel time budget” (Knoflacher 2016, p. 630). Against this background, Schmitz (2001, p.  189) comes to the definition of traffic-effective patterns of action that result from extending the range of one’s action due to higher speeds while the travel time budget remains unchanged. Accordingly, the first category consists of the choice of areas of action (households) and market areas (businesses) as well as the spatial interactions associated with them, which increases freedom of choice both with respect to longer-term activity locations, such as residential and work locations, and with respect to the locations of spontaneously chosen events and market relationships, such as cultural and recreational facilities: “An expansion of the range when viewed individually means at the same time an expansion of the commuting areas when viewed collectively.” This correlation must be taken into account in the detailed consideration of the individual traffic parameters. Holz-Rau (1997, p. 22) in this context points out the relationship between compact settlement structures and the tendency to use public transport: “Dense construction methods can reduce inner-city distances. At the same time, they create concentrations of demand that support facilities close to residential areas and make it possible to finance attractive public transportation services. The demand potential in the catchment area of a stop increases linearly with the population density, and the number of stops required, the distance the public transport service has to cover and thus the travel time and costs decrease linearly.”

6 Proposals for a Specific Model of Accessibility The levying of contributions for public transportation infrastructure is only possible – subject to the condition of an appropriate legal basis – if the potential benefit for the residents of a track-bound public transport infrastructure in cities can be proven on a small-scale level. For this purpose, it is necessary to examine the suitability of current models of accessibility for assessing the situation of residents served by a track-based public transport infrastructure and, if necessary, to supplement them with a more suitable accessibility model.

6.1 Accessibility Classes of the European Commission A new method for measuring accessibility in public transport as a prerequisite for a comparative accessibility analysis of major European cities has been developed

202

O. Mietzsch

by the European Commission as part of its cohesion funding (European Commission 2015). The reason for the development of the new method was the observation that a lack of data regarding population distribution as well as the location of access points complicates a comparative analysis in the field of public transport accessibility in major European cities. The European Commission expects a comparative accessibility analysis to provide a better overview of the actual investment needs as a prerequisite for a more efficient use of funding. The European Commission bases its considerations on five accessibility classes, which differ according to bus and streetcar connections or train and underground rail connections. The highest accessibility class (very high frequency) is assumed for stops with more than 10 departures per hour for buses and streetcars as well as train and underground rail connections. All other accessibility classes apply to either bus and streetcar or train and underground rail. High frequency is defined as more than 10 departures per hour, medium frequency is defined as four to 10 departures per hour, and low frequency is defined as up to 4 departures per hour. No services are defined as those where there is neither a bus or streetcar stop nor a train or underground rail station within walking distance (5  min or 417  m for bus or streetcar stops and 10 min or 833 meters for underground rail and train stations). On the basis of these accessibility classes, the European Commission has compared the public transport accessibility classes of 14 large and medium-sized European cities.11 Accordingly, the highest public transport accessibility shares (very high and high frequency) are found in Brussels, Marseille and Turin, each with a share of at least 80% of the population living within the urban center. Berlin is the only major German city with a range of over 60% and under 80% of the population living within the urban center. In medium-sized cities, the highest accessibility shares (very high and high frequency) are found only above a population share of 60% living within the urban center. These are Malmö, Utrecht and Tallinn. German cities are not to be found in the latter category at all (European Commission 2015, p. 4). However, this circumstance is not an argument against the described  The classification of cities is based on a new joint definition by the OECD and the EU. This identifies 828 (larger) urban centers with at least 50,000 inhabitants in the EU (incl. Croatia), Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. The basis of identification as an urban center is a population density of more than 1500 inhabitants/square km in settlements with at least 50,000 inhabitants that meet this requirement. On this basis, those urban centers are classified as cities in which, in addition to a corresponding political attribution, at least half of the population lives within the urban center defined in this way and at least 75% of the population lives in the city. Cf. European Commission ed. Cities in Europe.The new OECD-EC definition. RF 01/2012, p. 1, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/regional-focus/2012/cities-in-europe-the-new-oecd-ec-definition. Accessed 11/22/2017. 11

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

203

c­ lassification of accessibility or development qualities in or with track-bound public transport infrastructure in cities as a prerequisite for the introduction of a mandatory financial contribution. On the contrary, such an approach allows the creation of the benchmarks required for the introduction of a mandatory financial contribution.

6.2 The Quality Classes of Public Transport in Switzerland A specific example for the determination and evaluation of accessibility in public transport as a basis for financial decisions can be found in the public transport quality classes published by the Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) of the Swiss Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) (Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung 2011). For some years now, the determination of the public transport quality classes has been carried out in an automated process with data of the electronic timetable of the Swiss transport companies (HAFAS). The first step is to determine the stop category from the mode of transport – a distinction is made between three groups of transport modes: A (rail nodes), B (streetcars, buses, postal buses, call buses and ships) and C (cable cars) – and the frequency of service. This is then combined with the distance to the stop to establish quality classes for public transport. On this basis, each stop integrated in the HAFAS timetable is assigned to a public transport quality class. The determination of the frequency sequences is based on a reference day (this is a working day outside the vacation season and the high tourist season) between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; in order to determine the average departures per stop and direction, the number of departures is halved – with correction of terminal stops and stops served in only one direction. Subsequently, the service frequency is calculated separately for groups A and B and these are then linked to five stop categories, “whereby the quality of access decreases with increasing category number” (Federal Office for Spatial Development 2013, p. 19). As an additional accessibility parameter, the linear distance to the nearest stop is then measured and the quality class is determined on this basis. The distance radii are 300  m, 500  m, 750 m and 1000 m. This results in a total of five quality classes for public transport, which are derived from the stop category and the stop distance: Quality class A stands for very good accessibility, quality class B for good accessibility, quality class C for moderate accessibility and quality class D for marginal accessibility. No quality class means marginal or no public transport development at all (Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung 2013, p. 20).

204

O. Mietzsch

6.3 Residential Car Parking Statute with Public Transport Bonus: Mainz Another example for the assessment of public transport accessibility with financial implications can be found in the residential car parking statute of the Rhineland-­ Palatinate state capital Mainz (2015). Based on an overall declining car parking space requirement for residential uses and with regard to individual city areas, the city council has decided to issue a public transport bonus for residential uses in the future when determining the necessary car parking space requirement.12 Since 2015, Section 88 of the Rhineland-Palatinate Building Code has given municipalities the option of issuing regulations specifying the number of car parking spaces required in residential areas. The city of Mainz has made use of this option by issuing a new car parking space regulation in 2015, including residential parking spaces for bicycles, in a way that combines the requirement to promote the use of environmentally friendly modes of transport with the avoidance of unnecessary construction costs and land consumption. Accordingly, a public transport bonus is granted, staggered according to area zones, by which the number of residential car parking spaces required is to be reduced. This bonus amounts to 30% in zone I, 20% in zone II and 10% in zone III. The specific area zones are subdivided according to the quality of accessibility by public transport, here in particular by streetcars (Table 9.1). In analogous application of this model, all three accessibility categories mixed with a specific public transport bonus could thus form the basis for a corresponding contribution rate. This could then be graded according to quality level (differentiated according to service frequency, travel time and transfer requirements) – also in analogy to the procedure for the Mainz residential car parking space statute.

6.4 Public Transport Accessibility Index According to Mietzsch/Peter The author believes that for the purpose of a comparative evaluation of different accessibility models, an adaptation of the different accessibility models to the conditions of the extension of the underground rail line, the U4, in Hamburg is most

 In the printed statute, reference is made to the findings of the SrV survey as justification for the intended reduction in the motor vehicle parking space requirement. 12

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

205

Table 9.1  Mainz Residential car parking space statutes with public transport bonus ÖPNV-­ Bonus 30%

Bus only ≥12 departures HVZ or

and ≤10 min distance HBF

≤6 – ≥11 departures HVZ or

20%

10%

Streetcar only ≥12 departures HVZ or ≤6 – ≥11 departures HVZ or ≥6 departures HVZ ≥12 departures HVZ or ≤6 – ≥11 departures HVZ or

and ≤5 min distance HBF or

and ≤5 min and ≤10 min distance HBF distance HBF or or Walking distance to the and ≤10 min and ≤5 min Roman Theater (600 m) distance HBF distance HBF ≥12 HVZ departures or and ≥11 – and ≥6 – ≤15 min ≤20 min distance HBF distance HBF or ≤6 – ≥11 departures and ≥6 – and ≥11 – HVZ or ≤10 min ≤15 min distance HBF distance HBF or or ≥6 HVZ departures and ≤5 min ≥6 departures and ≤10 min distance HBF HVZ distance HBF All other public transport services (bus/tram) are within a 300 m catchment radius of the public transport stops

Source: Own illustration, reprinted in: Mietzsch 2019

appropriate in order to be able to draw conclusions for the most suitable model for the determination of a public transport infrastructure contribution scheme.13 In the eastern part of Hamburg, the existing underground line 4 is to be extended to include the Stoltenstraße and Dannerallee stops, providing access to about 15,000 residents.14 The project is justified in particular by a significant improvement in public transport services in the planning area. It is planned to extend the line beyond the Horner Rennbahn station and have a total length of 1.6  km (Fig. 9.1). Between Jungfernstieg and Horner Rennbahn stations, underground rail lines 2 and 4 will continue to be routed together. The new line will connect Stoltenstrasse and Dannerallee stations directly to the central interchanges at  This chapter is based on the contribution of Mietzsch, Oliver and Peter, Marcus. Setting infrastructure contributions for funding urban track-based public transport based on accessibility indicators. Transport and Technology (1) 2019: 3–7, (2) 2019: 59–64, and (3) 2019: 93–96 back. 14  Update data at grid level; primary source Census (2011): https://www.zensus2011.de/ SharedDocs/Aktuelles/Ergebnisse/DemografischeGrunddaten.html;jsessionid=686F0AA66 CB3DFA747B7D9CAFB2B0578.1_cid380?nn=3065474. Accessed 11/21/2018. 13

206

O. Mietzsch

Fig. 9.1  Extension of the U4 to Horner Geest (planning). (Source: Marcus Peter, reprinted in: Mietzsch and Peter 2019)

Berliner Tor, Hauptbahnhof and Jungfernstieg. This will result in connections with a maximum of one change to the entire Hamburg rail network. The journey time to Hamburg’s main station will be 10–13 min. At least during rush hour, a frequency of 5 min is planned. A total of €465 million has been budgeted for the investment.15 Accessibility is generally defined in terms of the ease with which different people can reach different destinations (Dalvi and Martin 1976). In this context, the modern concept of mobility is implicitly thematized. Here, mobility is understood as the anticipated possibility of meeting individual needs outside the home by traveling to a different location. The actual journey to this location is referred to as transport. Consequently, the scope of mobility can significantly exceed that of measurable traffic. This understanding of the term also makes it necessary to consider travel times to specific destinations and not only accessibility to the public  All data cf. https://dialog.hochbahn.de/u-bahn-heute-und-morgen/das-kostet-die-u4-verlaengerung-auf-die-horner-geest (Accessed 11/21/2018). 15

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

207

transport system. The aim of accessibility indicators is thus to assess the scope of mobility options at a given location. Consequently, in addition to the so-called simple accessibility parameters, which evaluate the distance to the next stop or the range of trips offered there, so-called integrated accessibility parameters are also required, which seem suitable for measuring additional mobility options. Only these additional mobility options are suitable as a starting point for determining the public transport infrastructure contribution and thus makes it possible to justify it, provided there is an appropriate legal basis. Since the models presented to measure accessibility by the European Commission, the Swiss Federal Office and the City of Mainz consider the travel times required to engage in activities only partially, a separate evaluation model is created, which allows a more precise quantification of the additional benefit after construction of the new underground rail line is completed. For this reason it is assumed that travel times and transfer frequencies to specific destinations are decisive for the level of mobility of the local residential population and are thus better able to represent the additional benefit as indicators of accessibility. Frequently, accumulation indicators are used to determine the range of mobility options offered by a specific public transport service (Boisjoly and El-Geneidy 2016). It is assumed that a larger range of accessible destinations increases the likelihood of fulfilling the needs that give rise to a journey, within an acceptable period of time. At the same time, transfers or service frequencies can also be taken into account as geographical barriers, as well as any other opportunities for recreational activities. The more workplaces that can be reached within 30 min, the more likely a person is assumed to be able to reach his or her workplace within those 30 min (Fig. 9.2). And the more workplaces that can be reached, the more attractive a location is to people and businesses, since many destinations can be reached from that location. This improved propitiousness of a location with respect to destinations is also expressed in rising real estate prices. The proposed public transport accessibility index is primarily based on such cumulation indicators. In addition to cumulation indicators, the distance to the nearest train stop is also considered in order to integrate the spatial proximity to the new service into the accessibility model as well. The proposed public transport accessibility index is based on a total of 13 parameters or individual indicators, which were calculated in the zero and analysis case respectively.16 In Table 9.2 an overview of the individual indicators used for each evaluation method is provided. The maximum value of each individual indicator in the study area is weighted at 100%. All other indicator values are considered proportionally to the maximum value and then transferred proportionally to the 16

 Zero case = actual condition; analysis case = after extension of the U4.

O. Mietzsch

208

Fig. 9.2  Workplaces accessible by public transport in 60 min. (Source: Institute for Transportation Planning and Logistics TU Hamburg 2017, reprinted in: Mietzsch and Peter 2019) Table 9.2  Composition of the public transport accessibility index Weighting (%) 50 7 8 8 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 100

Accessibility indicator Distance to nearest train stop Accessible workplaces in 30 min Accessible workplaces in 60 min Accessible workplaces without change Population accessible in 30 min Population accessible in 60 min Inhabitants accessible without transfer Accessible recreational opportunities in 30 min Accessible recreational opportunities in 60 min Accessible recreational opportunities without transfer Accessible shopping facilities in 30 min Accessible shopping opportunities in 60 min Accessible shopping opportunities without transfer

Source: Marcus Peter/Oliver Mietzsch, reprinted in: Mietzsch and Peter (2019)

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

209

overall indicator. If a maximum of 500 workplaces are reached within half an hour in the defined area, this value is weighted at 100%. If 400 workplaces are reached in another analysis cell, the individual indicator in that cell is weighted at 80%. The high weighting of the stop distance reflects its importance for the attractiveness of the public transport service. The real distances to the stops were square root17 to reduce the relative deviations. Then, for each cell, the multiple of the minimum value was calculated and related to 100%. Thus, a real distance of 500 m with a minimum distance of 100 m corresponds to five times the value or 20%. The final public transport accessibility index is a metric number and therefore different for all locations.

6.5 Comparison of Different Accessibility Models In Fig. 9.3 the distribution of relative infrastructure fees is demonstrated in spatial terms. No specific payment estimate was made. Nevertheless, the results clearly show that the fees to be collected essentially depend on the measurement method used. Since the public transport infrastructure fees would have to be paid by the property owners along the route and no information is available on the number and facilities of the properties in the defined area, it was also not possible to allocate fees. The public transport bonus according to the Mainz residential car parking statute would lead to an increase in infrastructure fees over the course of the new route, since the underground rail extension would be classified as higher-quality mode of transport and significantly reduce travel times to the main station. Due to taking the travel time to Hamburg Central Station into consideration, the public transportation bonus would somewhat decrease as travel time increases, this also applies to Dannerallee station. Overall, the funding base would be reduced by the fact that a distance of 300 meters to stops is well below the approximately 1000 m, the maximum usual distance to the closest rail stop (FGSV 2010). A similar funding base would result if the Swiss public transport quality classes were taken into account. It can be seen that even areas already endowed with very good bus connections would not be able to achieve any accessibility improvements after the U4 had been extended. This applies to areas south and east of Dannerallee  Square root = take the square root. Real distances of 1000 and 2000 m result in squared values of 31.6 and 14.0. Before squaring, the real distance of 1000 m was five times higher than the comparison value; after squaring, it was only about twice as high. Accordingly, the differences between the individual real distances are smoothed out. 17

210

O. Mietzsch

Fig. 9.3  Relative financing fees based on different calculation bases. (Source: Marcus Peter, reprinted in: Mietzsch and Peter 2019)

station. They are already well served by Metrobus lines 23 and 27. This would lead to a situation where property owners in the immediate vicinity of the station would not be involved in the funding. However, this would be offset by a contribution levy on property owners in much more distant locations in the vicinity of the

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

211

Stoltenstrasse station. North of the Stoltenstrasse station, there are also three areas with a larger increase in accessibility than in the immediate vicinity of the station. This is because longer walking distances to an underground station are considered more acceptable than to bus stops. In the southern catchment area, there are also individual locations that show a negative development in the accessibility parameters due to the deterioration in service at Legienstrasse. The planned underground rail extension in Hamburg is understood as a railroad according to the ideas of the EU Commission, and the access points are accordingly referred to as stations. On the basis of the EU’s public transport accessibility assessment, there would be an improvement in service, particularly for the area around Stoltenstrasse. The greatest increases would be available at relatively long distances from the Stoltenstraße stop. Maximum distances of 417 meters are considered for bus services and 833 meters for rail services. This means that areas that were outside the catchment area of a bus stop before the introduction of the U4 now would be within the catchment area of a rail stop after the introduction of the underground line. Accordingly, the accessibility level would increase significantly. Nevertheless, it would probably not be possible to levy contributions on the basis of such assumptions since those property owners whose properties are comparatively distant from the new rail line would be burdened the most in relation. To make matters worse, the stringent limit of 833 meters distance to a rail station leads to the creation of thresholds. Thus, properties whose owners would have to pay a high fee are located directly next to those whose owners would not have to pay any fees at all. In contrast, the public transport accessibility index as envisaged by Mietzsch/ Peter shows extensive accessibility gains for the areas around the Dannerallee and Stoltenstraße stations. All areas in the vicinity of the new stops benefit from the extension of the U4. However, the influence of the distance to the stop is clearly discernible. What is not apparent is the slightly shorter travel time to Hamburg Central Station and the city center starting from Stoltenstrasse. However, since only 2  min of travel time are saved, this saving has to be considered negligible anyway. Much more significant here is the clear influence of the distance between stops as well as the larger spatial scope of the beneficiaries to be involved. An appropriately designed public transport infrastructure contribution would thus be able to serve as a basis for calculating the financial contributions for many residents of track-bound public transport infrastructure in cities and, moreover, to put it in a realistic relation to the actual benefit gained from the new infrastructure. With the help of this public transport accessibility index, it is possible to show in a more differentiated way what added value the additional service offers. This, in turn, should be not only sufficient, but rather a necessary prerequisite for the application

212

O. Mietzsch

of an appropriately designed funding instrument for track-bound public transport infrastructure in cities, and one that would stand up in court, provided that there is a legal basis for it.

7 Conclusion Whether the accessibility models presented here are sufficient to meet the legal requirements for an adequate cost-benefit ratio as a prerequisite for the introduction of beneficiary participation in track-based public transport infrastructure or whether other accessibility models are better suited remains unresolved, as long as there is no practical application of the proposed new funding instrument. The prerequisite for this is to be found in a legal basis for the municipalities, e.g. in the form of an extension of the concept of a ‘facility’ to include public transport in the German Building Code (BauGB), in order to be able to co-finance new construction and the expansion of track-based public transport infrastructure on a pro rata basis via charges imposed on the beneficiaries. In view of the historically outdated, unbalanced and financially restrictive framework for transport financing, it is high time to break new ground. The transport turnaround requires a legal and administrative equivalent that no longer sees mobility and transport as opposites but, with the help of an integrated funding and planning approach, creates the conditions for more mobility with less transport (cf. the contribution by Schwedes in this volume).

References Apel, Dieter, et al. Flächen sparen, Verkehr reduzieren. Difu-Beiträge zur Stadtentwicklung. 1995 Berlin (own translation). Boisjoly, G. und El-Geneidy, A. M. Daily fluctuations in transit and job availability: A comparative assessment of time-sensitive accessibility measures. In Journal of Transport Geography, Bd. 52, 2016: 73–81. Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung (Hrsg.)ÖV-Güteklassen. Berechnungsmethodik ARE (Grundlagenbericht für die Beurteilung der Agglomerationsprogramme) Verkehr und Siedlung, 11.2011 Aktualisierung 02.2017, https://www.are.admin.ch/dam/are/de/ dokumente/verkehr/oev-­g ueteklassen-­b erechnungsmethodikare.pdf.download.pdf/ oev-­gueteklassen-­berechnungsmethodikare.pdf, https://www.are.admin.ch/dam/are/de/ dokumente/verkehr/oev-­gueteklassen-­berechnungsmethodikare.pdf.download.pdf/oev-­ gueteklassen-­berechnungsmethodikare.pdf. Accessed: 22.11.2017. Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung (Hrsg.) Reisezeiten und ÖV-Güteklassen. Aktualisierung der Geodaten und Karten, 08.2013, https://www.are.admin.ch/dam/are/de/dokumente/

9  Funding Public Mobility: A Plea for a New Understanding of Mobility…

213

reisezeiten_und_oev-­gueteklassen.pdf.download.pdf/reisezeiten_und_oev-­gueteklassen. pdf. Accessed: 22.11.2017 (own translation). Dalvi, M. Q. und Martin, K M.: The measurement of accessibility: Some preliminary results. In Transportation. Planning – Policy – Research – Practice, Bd. 5, (1) 1976, S. 17–42. Deutsch, Volker et al. 2016. Integration von Stadtplanung und ÖPNV für lebenswerte Städte. Difu-Papers, Juni 2016. European Commission Hrsg. Measuring access to public transport in European cities. Regional Working Paper 2015 WP, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2015_01_publ_transp.pdf. Accessed 22.11.2017. Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen (FGSV), Arbeitsgruppe Verkehrsmanagement (2010) (Hrsg.): Richtlinien für Lichtsignalanlagen (RiLSA); aktualisiert 2015. Grziwotz, Herbert. In Ernst, Werner et al. BauGB 103. EL. 2012. Grossekettler, Heinz. Die Versorgung mit Kollektivgütern als ordnungspolitisches Problem. Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge Universität Münster. Bd. 135. Manuskript eines Beitrages zum Eucken-Gedenkband des Jahrbuchs ORDO (vorläufige Fassung). Münster 1991 (own translation). Heckmann, Dirk. Gestaltungskraft und Geltungsverlust von Rechtsnormen. Tübingen 1997. Hegelau, Hans Joachim. Die rechtliche Zulässigkeit einer Nahverkehrsabgabe. Institut Finanzen und Steuern e. V. Nr. 39. Bonn 1994 (own translation). Hilgers, Hans Anton (Bearbeiter). Erschließungsbeiträge zur Finanzierung des ÖPNV. Deutscher Bundestag, Wissenschaftliche Dienste (2012) Hrsg. WD 7–3000–217/12. Holz-Rau, Christian. Siedlungsstruktur und öffentlicher Personennahverkehr. Zur Integration des Nahverkehrsplans. Vereinigung für Stadt-, Regional und Landesplanung (SRL) Hrgs. Der Nahverkehrsplan – Neue Chance für Stadtentwicklung und Verkehrsplanung? Berlin 1997, S. 16–25 (own translation). Jarass, Hans D. und Pieroth, Bodo. Kommentar zum Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 9. Aufl., München 2007. Klusemann, Georg-Friedrich. Kommunalabgaben  – Drama ohne Ende? Hrsg. Friedrich-­ Ebert-­Stiftung. Kommunalpolitische Texte Band 18. Bonn 1998 (own translation). Knieps, Günter. Knappheitsprobleme in Netzen: Was leistet die Ökonomie? Diskussionsbeiträge des Instituts für Verkehrswissenschaft und Regionalpolitik, Nr. 83. Freiburg im Breisgau 2002, https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/47624. Accessed 13.10.2018 (own translation). Knoflacher, Hermann. Ingenieurwissenschaft und Verkehrstechnologie: Analyse eines Herrschaftszusammenhangs. In: Schwedes, O. et al. 2016 Hrsg. Handbuch Verkehrspolitik. 2. Aufl., Wiesbaden 2016. Köhler, Uwe. Erreichbarkeit im Personenverkehr. In. Straßenverkehrstechnik 10 2011. Landeshauptstadt Mainz. Satzung über die Herstellung und Bereitstellung von Kfz-­ Stellplätzen und Fahrradabstellplätzen vom 02.12.2015, Drucksache-Nr.: 1843/2015; vgl. https://Bi.mainz.de/vo0050.php?_kvonr=16807. Accessed: 22.12.2017. Lehmann, Carsten und Rodi, Hansjörg. ÖPNV in der Marktwirtschaft. Ein Ordnungsentwurf mit kritischer Würdigung der jüngsten Reformen. Diskussionspapier Nr. 5, Institut für Verkehrswissenschaft an der Universität Münster 1997. Maak, Eckhard. Verkehrslenkende Abgabenmodelle. Gebühren und Beiträge im Dienst der Verkehrssteuerung. Dissertation. Tübingen 1998 (own translation).

214

O. Mietzsch

Mietzsch, Oliver. Nichtsteuerliche Instrumente schienengebundener ÖPNV-Infrastruktur. Dissertation, Chemnitzer Schriften für Wirtschaftsrecht Nr. 76, Lößnitz 2019. Mietzsch, Oliver und Peter, Marcus. Festsetzung von Infrastrukturbeiträgen zur Finanzierung des schienengebundenen ÖPNV in Städten auf der Basis von Erreichbarkeitsindikatoren. Verkehr und Technik (1) 2019: 3–7, (2) 2019: 59–64 und (3) 2019: 93–96. Sander, Ludger. Aufgaben und Einnahmen der Kommunen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Münster 1987. Schmitz, Stefan. Revolutionen der Erreichbarkeit. Gesellschaft, Raum und Verkehr im Wandel, Wiesbaden 2001 (own transaltion). VDV-Statistik 2018, https://www.vdv.de/statistik-­jahresbericht.aspx (11.08.2020).

Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement and Comparison Methods

10

Alexander Rammert

1

Introduction

Mobility has changed in recent decades from the unloved stepchild to the ‘poster child’ of modern transport policy and planning. Instead of planning transport, mobility is now being ‘managed’, transport companies are becoming mobility service providers, a basic right to mobility is being demanded and a large number of actors now even offer ‘mobility as a service’. Mobility has replaced transport as the central narrative in public discourse as well as in planning policy debates. Modern transport policy models elevate individual possibilities and quality of life to new target variables; traffic flow strengths and infrastructure expansion plans are fading into the background: the aspirations of public mobility are emerging (see the contribution by Wolking). In the meantime, mobility in Germany even has its first own law (see the contribution by Kirchner in this volume) and is thus heralding the change on the legislative level as well. However – and this is characteristic of any societal transformation process  – an ever-growing discrepancy is emerging between the demands of human-centered mobility planning and transport planning as it is actually practiced and institutionalized (Schwedes 2018, p. 5). In Germany in particular, it is still based on the norms of post-war general transport planning, A. Rammert (*) Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_10

215

216

A. Rammert

dominated by the guiding principles of the time, such as the car-friendly city or transport as an economic driver (Steierwald et al. 2005, p. 403 ff.). Accordingly, current policy and planning find themselves in the unsatisfactory situation where mobility is universally recognized as a central dimension of planning, but there is a lack of institutions and instruments to fashion it in an evidence-based way. Thus, it is not possible to adequately map mobility with the classical methods of impact assessment and calculation. Even the acquired engineering skills of transport ­planners reach their limits when people and the environment become the starting point for planning instead of roads and traffic lights. This has resulted in the creation of entirely new positions for mobility managers or mobility officers in many administrations in Germany by the Ministry of Research (BMBF 2019). New skills are needed in how to study mobility and how to implement mobility-related measures in a participatory manner, because otherwise their impact on mobility will mostly remain limited. Tomorrow’s mobility planners will no longer merely build infrastructures or program signaling systems, but will shape people’s mobility and influence their actions. But it is not only training and personnel that are affected by this change; the traditional tools of transportation planning, such as benefit-cost analyses, traffic flow counts, or transportation system modeling, are also unsuitable for making mobility amenable to being shaped by policy-makers and planners in a goal-oriented manner. Instead, new instruments are needed that make mobility measurable and plannable. Only in this way can mobility be institutionalized on an equal footing with transport and infrastructure as part of integrated policy and planning. Otherwise, mobility will continue to remain a black box for planning practice as an obscure design variable. Thus, instruments are needed that can resolve the complexity of mobility by creating transparency about local conditions and normative demands. What does ‘high mobility’ mean? When is a minimum of mobility guaranteed and how can the planner determine this? Mobility research now offers a broad portfolio of methods for this purpose, some of them very elaborate, in order to adequately record people’s mobility (Wilde et al. 2017) or to design them with suitable mobility management measures (Schwedes and Rammert 2020b). What is missing is a large-scale assessment tool that makes mobility in municipalities and cities measurable and thus comparable, analogous to accessibility analysis or health reporting. How else are target criteria, such as high mobility or a minimum level of mobility, to be systematically reviewed? The challenge, then, is to make the social and thus qualitative manifestations of mobility quantitatively and aggregately representable (see also the contribution by Mietzsch in this volume). Classical transport and mobility research does not yet offer a solution for this, which is why a look at neighboring disciplines seems helpful. In comparative politics, for example, a methodology exists that makes it possible to represent complex

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

217

sociocultural relationships in a simplified and aggregated way at the global level: the index. It serves as a social science instrument to make complex interrelations visible and, as a consequence, to initiate political and social changes. In the end, the index construction could also make mobility, just like education, democracy or justice, transparent and thus assessable. This is a feature that is still missing in mobility planning as it is currently practiced. In the following, we will outline what the way to a scientific mobility index should look like – starting with an understanding of how mobility can be conceived as an adequate planning variable in the first place, to a more detailed consideration of indices as a political and planning assessment tool. In this way, the approach for indexing mobility presented here is to be explicitly distinguished from existing, reductionist ‘mobility indices’, the main content of which consists of mapping aspects specific to a transport mode (Mobility Index of the Pro-Rail Alliance) or economic contextual conditions (Urban Mobility Index), each of which captures only a fraction of the complex, scientific understanding of mobility. These findings are rounded off in the requirements for scientific mobility measurement. Here, the factors to be included in such a measurement, the quality criteria and the limitations to be dealt with are presented in detail. A mobility index, so the thesis of this text, can be used in the result both for the normative aspirations of public mobility and for the self-empowerment of civil society. In this way, the mobility index offers planning and governments a long overdue tool for making mobility assessable and comparable.

2 Mobility as a Variable for Planning First, we want to take a closer look at mobility as a socio-spatial phenomenon in order to clarify in which form it can be used as a planning variable at all. The concept of mobility has existed for more than 100 years, but for a long time it played a similarly subordinate role for planners in engineering planning practice as ‘well-­ being’ or ‘aesthetics’. This connection can be traced through the history of transport planning in Germany. Initially, the task of post-war (road) traffic planning consisted mainly of ensuring that infrastructures were adequate for the growing traffic flows (Mäcke 1964). Humans were subsumed under the means of transportation, and thus planners transformed human movement patterns into object-like traffic flows, analogous to the conveyor belt logistics in the growing industrial plants. Accordingly, traffic-related variables such as speed, flow capacity, and material wear played a decisive role in infrastructure planning; at best, humans were considered a disruptive factor that impeded the synchronized flow of traffic through

218

A. Rammert

their irrationality (Knoflacher 2009, p.  71).1 With increasing traffic growth and i­ncreasing congestion in cities in the 1970s and 1980s, transportation planning needed new tools to intervene in the system. With increasing computerization, new technical opportunities arose for engineers of the time to influence the transportation system without having to undertake large-scale, structural measures. Over time, civil engineers were joined by more and more information engineers in traffic planning, who developed a completely new dimension of traffic planning in the form of traffic management (Vallée 2008). New types of control circuits and complex traffic management systems soon dominated all traffic facilities and endeavored to organize the ever-growing traffic flows as efficiently as possible. Meanwhile, human irrationality was taken for granted and operationalized in the form of mathematical constants, such as ‘compliance rates’ or ‘random actor models’, in traffic engineering formulas and simulations. Green light waves, dynamic shoulder clearance or systematic traffic radio information opened up new fields of action for traffic planning to be able to shape traffic and its effects in a novel way: in vain. Today – 70 years after the beginning of general traffic planning and numerous innovations in structural, organizational and information technology measures – we are still at the temporary maximum point of traffic volume and the associated negative effects (Schwedes and Rammert 2020b, pp. 5–13). Infrastructure and traffic management have not been able to stop the unrestrained growth of traffic at the expense of people and nature. Only economic growth continuously showed a positive balance and is thus still considered a key argument for justifying classical transport planning. But the narratives have changed: people and the environment are moving to the center of international guiding principles (FES 2019, p. 5 ff.), and even transport planning can no longer use added economic values to conceal the negative impacts on people, nature, and the climate. And so, over time, mobility increasingly moved into the focus of transport planning and with it the social sciences. If we look at this development of German transport planning in retrospect, it quickly becomes obvious why mobility as the newest dimension of integrated transport planning (Schwedes et al. 2018) has so far found it so difficult to function as a fully-fledged planning variable in practice. The decades-long orientation of procedures, processes, and structures to the engineering and technical requirements of transportation systems has resulted in a complete lack of understanding in  Interestingly, this historical understanding of humans and traffic also reappears in the context of autonomous transport systems. From a technical perspective, the influence of humans should also be minimized as much as possible in order to achieve higher transport efficiency (Schlag 2016). 1

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

219

General meeting Board of Directors Management

traffic planning* Working group 1 Road design*

Coordination CommitteeBau

Transport Coordination Committee

Infrastructure management*

Commission 1

Traffic management* Cross-sectional committees

Aggregates, Unbound construction*

Municipal roads Urban transport research programme

Freight

Commission 2

Commission 4

Commission 5

Asphalt construction methods*

Concrete construction methods*

* with Steering Committee Working Committees Working Groups

4 Working group 4

Earthworks and foundation engineering* Working group 5

Quality Management

Working group 2

Working group 3

Advisory Board

Working group 6

Working group 7

Working group 8

Organigram of the FGSV

Fig. 10.1  Characteristic for the monothematic orientation is the organization chart of the Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen (FGSV), which de facto prepares all relevant German regulations for the planning integration of mobility and transport (FGSV 2020)

classical transportation planning for mobility-related concerns. Evidence of this includes the teaching curricula of Germany’s largest transportation planning programs in Dresden, Berlin, Braunschweig, and Aachen, as well as the cumbersome integration of mobility management in administrative practice (Schwedes et  al. 2017, p.  61 ff.). The regulations and constitution of the German Road and Transportation Research Association (FGSV) also express this deficit (see Fig. 10.1). As a result, mobility has long been left to other disciplines such as geography, urban planning, or sociology. This is problematic in that neither the social science-­ based nor the engineering-based disciplines made any effort to adequately operationalize mobility and mobility planning (Wilde and Klinger 2017). This results in the paradoxical situation today that, on the one hand, mobility is invoked as a central planning variable and new administrative bodies for its design are emerging across the Republic, but on the other hand, there is neither a clear understanding of what mobility is in the first place, nor are there adequate sets of rules and planning guidelines on how it should be designed (Schwedes and Rammert 2020b). At this point, it should be pointed out that this paradox is a phenomenon specific to Germany. In almost all neighboring European countries, there are either adaptations of the European Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (Kiba-Janiak and

220

A. Rammert

Witkowski 2019) or their own planning tools, such as the mobility plans in the Netherlands or France (Wulfhorst and Wolfram 2010). Why Germany in particular is so resistant to a comprehensive integration of mobility in planning remains to be investigated in the future. What is certain, however, is that the transport development plans that dominate here, as well as the gatekeeper function of the FGSV with regard to regulations and planning instruments are significant factors in this respect (Schwedes and Rammert 2020a). The mobility plans that are currently emerging2 and mobility laws, as well as the information on mobility and social exclusion provided by the FGSV (2015), are the first rays of hope for the German mobility planner, who is otherwise left in the dark. Thus, it remains to be noted that for historical, structural, and cultural reasons, mobility in Germany remains marginalized as a planning variable. At the same time, there is a growing need for planning and policy makers to be able to design mobility on the basis of evidence. Thus, in addition to a clear understanding of what mobility actually is, procedures and instruments are needed to measure and evaluate it. Before we take a closer look at indices as a planning policy tool, it is important to clearly delineate mobility as a planning variable. Otherwise, it is hardly possible for any planning procedure to design a phenomenon like mobility in a goal-­oriented and evidence-based way. First of all, it can be stated that even in science there is still no agreement on an exact description of mobility. Rather, the various disciplines each have their own understanding of mobility, which makes it difficult to bring together engineering, planning and social science aspects in an integrated way. However, such a combination seems to make sense, since mobility – and the different disciplines agree on this – can be influenced by many different factors. These include spatial and traffic structures, which are classically studied in spatial and traffic sciences, social and cultural structures, which play a role in sociology, sociodemographic factors, which are often researched in geographic sciences, or subjective perceptions, which are of central importance in psychology and behavioral research. We see: mobility is an interdisciplinary phenomenon and therefore can only be operationalized for planning practice across disciplines. Based on the understanding that mobility describes the subjective possibilities for being mobile and the fulfillment of needs (Schwedes et al. 2018, p. 5), we can begin to search for possible factors that influence this individual space of possibilities in the different disciplines. The goal is to identify all mobility-relevant indicators in order later to render them usable in their entirety for possible planning  Positive examples of mobility plans can be found for the cities of Munich, Kassel, Osnabrück, Düsseldorf, and the Frankfurt region, among others. 2

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

221

tools. For this purpose, spatial and transportation sciences already offer a functioning planning tool with the accessibility analysis to make spatial structures measurable with regard to the accessibility of basic services, such as grocery stores, medical practices or educational institutions (Schwarze 2015). Related to mobility, as a subjective possibility for being mobile and fulfilling needs, it is thus clear that the spatial framework used in accessibility analyses must also play a role in the study of mobility. But accessibility has not only a spatial component, but also an individual component (Altenburg et al. 2009). For example, pedestrian access to a grocery store only exists if the individual can walk. Just as access to a car (BBSR 2020) only applies to those who can afford a private car. In this respect, there is also an individual component that determines whether the infrastructural facilities and transport structures can be used at all. Measurement instruments already exist in Germany for these so-called individual preconditions. In the large German cross-­ sectional studies Mobility in Germany – MiD (Nobis and Kuhnimhof 2017) and Mobility in Cities – SrV3 (Ahrens et al. 2014), many of these socio-demographic factors, such as household income, access to transportation, or health limitations, are encompassed. However, the MiD’s measurement of mobility, for example, falls short if the mobility rate is defined solely in terms of the “proportion of people who leave their home at least once in a day” (Nobis and Kuhnimhof 2017, p. 25) is defined. This reduction of mobility to actual changes of location, i.e., traffic, is further reinforced in the subsequent analysis of the data by distinguishing between “mobile” and “non-mobile” people, differing only by whether they left the house on the reference date (ibid., pp. 25 ff., 131). It vividly shows how rudimentary the understanding of mobility is in one of Germany’s largest cross-sectional studies, since the measured ‘out-of-the-homeness’ represents only a tiny fraction of people’s actual mobility. Nonetheless, the study encompasses many important socio-­ demographic factors that need to be considered for mobility to be adequately measured. However, it unfortunately fails to contextualize these with individual spaces of opportunity. However, not only accessibility, but also environmental structures are relevant factors that receive little attention in transportation science, but significantly influence people’s spaces of opportunity in other disciplines. High levels of air pollution, elevated noise levels, or severe thermal stress can all have an impact on individual options, as can the distance to the bus stop (Becker 2018, p. 75). To this end, the environmental sciences have also developed an instrument in the form of the environmental justice analysis, which has already been successfully integrated into the Berlin administration (SenStadtUm 2017). Here it sometimes becomes apparent how, although many factors relevant to mobility are measured  System repräsentativer Verkehrsbefragungen (System of Representative Transport Surveys)

3

222

A. Rammert

by different disciplines and used in specialized planning, their application is always dispersed and segregated. Accordingly, a mobility manager would have to be able to master and apply all these procedures, among other things; however, a ­correspondingly integrated training program hardly exists at German universities to date.4 In addition to spatial and socio-demographic factors, other disciplines have been able to identify even more far-reaching influences that affect individual opportunities for moving around. For example, the spatial sciences discovered very early on that mobility and the resulting choices of where to live and work are strongly related to socio-economic structures (Jarass 2012; Scheiner 2016). This means that, for example, an attractive job in a neighboring town or the concession of the commuting allowance can naturally change individual mobility (Holz-Rau 2019). Furthermore, social exclusion research shows us that socio-structural elements, such as a minimum income or public transport tickets for welfare recipients, are important components to prevent the spaces of opportunity of the people concerned from falling below a minimum level (Daubitz 2017). Social exclusion research has also already developed an instrument for this purpose in the form of the Lebenslagenuntersuchung (life situation survey), which shows how these indicators can be operationalized in planning at the federal level (Voges et al. 2003). In addition to these socio-structural influences, it has also been possible to identify factors at the individual level that have a lasting impact on mobility. Human geography in particular has shown important connections here by means of its cultural and social science perspectives. Thus, lifestyles and social milieus are two key variables that influence individual spaces of opportunity (Beckmann et al. 2006). With regard to these sociocultural preconditions, there is still a lack of functional operationalizations for planning practice, even though with mobility styles (Götz et al. 2016) and studies on mobility milieus (Dangschat 2018), initial approaches exist to make these findings usable for mobility planning. In summary, a wide field of different perspectives on mobility and related disciplines emerges. Some of the insights have already been operationalized in discipline-specific planning tools in isolation, but an integrated planning model for mobility is still missing. In particular, all of these approaches lack a key element of what fundamentally constitutes mobility: subjective perception. Based on the assumption that mobility describes the subjective possibilities for moving around and fulfilling needs, an adequate operationalization must of course also take into account people’s subjective perceptions. Thus, subjectivity is the key  One exception is the “Mobility Management” course at the Rhine-Main University of Applied Sciences. 4

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

223

differentiator that distinguishes mobility from transportation, accessibility, or living situation (Busch-Geertsema et al. 2016, p. 762). At least on this point, most social and planning sciences agree, although views diverge on whether and how these subjective components of mobility can be operationalized in practice (Kutter 2010; Wilde and Klinger 2017, p. 17). It is also clear that the subjective components of mobility are far more difficult to divide into discrete indicators than, for example, socio-demographic factors such as age, income, and occupational status. This relationship can be cited as one of the main reasons why mobility has remained so cumbersome in planning practice to this day, or why broad studies of mobility, such as the MiD, reductively include only spatial and individual factors: they are simply easier to quantify. This is another reason why, in the course of expanding mobility management, there have been repeated calls for a quantitative view of actual mobility (Schwedes et al. 2017, p. 165 ff.). In the German-speaking world in particular, hardly any examples of this are to be found, but in the international arena they are abundant. For example, subjective mobility factors have been studied in the form of the suppressed demand for mobility (Hine and Grieco 2003), the study on satisfaction with individual accessibility (Currie et al. 2010) and a survey of satisfaction with individual mobility (Spinney et  al. 2009) operationalized. Here, we usually refer to “subjective accessibility” (Scheepers et al. 2016, p. 96) or the “self-reported difficulty in changing location” (Delbosc and Currie 2011, p. 172). Furthermore, with the “Perceived Accessibility Scale” in Sweden (Lättman et al. 2016, p. 257) or the “Transport Disadvantage” surveys in Australia (Currie et al. 2010) constitute attempts to operationalize these two concepts in the practice of mobility planning and thus make them measurable. The studies were able to identify various question items that have real explanatory power in terms of perceived accessibility and the resulting spaces of opportunity (Delbosc and Currie 2011, p. 172; Lättman et al. 2016, p. 261). However, other factors, such as individual life satisfaction or perceptions of the family and social environment, also play an important role in personal mobility (Nordbakke and Schwanen 2015). Here, too, there are various examples in the context of exclusion research of how these phenomena can be operationalized through indicators. These include instruments such as the “Personal Wellbeing Index” (DeVos et al. 2013, p. 425) or the “Social Exclusion Index” (Stanley et al. 2011, p. 796), which operationalize the subjective perception of socio-cultural factors via survey items for practical research. In this way, the international social sciences in particular demonstrate the possibilities that exist for also making subjective perceptions of space and society measurable for planning. In summary, it can be seen that mobility in its complexity is determined by a variety of influencing variables. Appropriately, a multitude of scientific disciplines

224

A. Rammert

have dealt with the research and measurement of the individual dimensions of influence. With regard to the integration of mobility as a planning parameter for practice, it seems obvious to combine all these different dimensions of influence in a systemic model for mobility. This mobility model provides the basis for the subsequent design of different measurement, evaluation or influencing instruments for planning practice. What follows now is an interdisciplinary meta-analysis of German and international mobility research.5 It can be stated first of all that two levels are to be distinguished: First, the objective possibilities for individuals to move in space and fulfil needs. Second, the subjectively perceived opportunities, which contextualizes the objective level with individual perceptions and experiences. The interplay of these two levels is illustrated by examples of transportation planning such as bus stops or pedestrian underpasses. The objective availability of these infrastructures provides only partial information about their actual accessibility. People who lack knowledge of bus stops, whose destinations are not served by the bus, or fears prevent them from using pedestrian underpasses, have subjectively a much lower accessibility than suggested on an objective level. Their mobility is thus limited and in this case cannot be increased exclusively by infrastructural measures. Furthermore, at the objective level, a distinction must be made between structural circumstances and individual preconditions. This means that even the objective level must be contextualized individually in order to determine a person’s actual objective space of opportunity. This becomes clear, for example, on the basis of accessibility. Thus, it is obvious that a young student and a senior citizen with a walking disability already have completely different spaces of opportunity from an objective point of view due to their individual conditions. The subjective perceptions of the individuals can further intensify these differences, but also reduce them. Thus, on the whole, individual mobility is composed of three key dimensions of influence: 1 . The structural circumstances (e.g., infrastructure) 2. The individual preconditions for action 3. The subjective perceptions In addition, all three sub-dimensions of mobility are influenced by both spatial factors and socio-cultural factors. Thus, it is not enough to look solely at transportation to work, disposable household income, or perceived accessibility; existing  The meta-analysis in question was conducted as part of the PhD project on the Mobility Index and has not yet been published at this time. 5

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

225

subsidy structures, individual lifestyles, and perceptions of cultural norms must also be included for a full consideration of mobility. Only then can planning claim to actually be mobility management, mobility planning, or mobility reporting. ­Unfortunately, with a few exceptions in Germany (see the contribution by Hausigke and Kruse in this volume), this has not yet been achieved, although with “sustainable urban mobility planning” (SUMP) a strong European guiding narrative exists to make this possible as soon as possible (Rupprecht Consult 2020). Thus, for a successful operationalization of mobility in policy and planning, all three dimensions of influence must be included (see Fig.  10.2). Only then are evidence-­based statements on mobility, the resulting routines and the mobility behavior to be observed possible. To date, this has not been the case within existing mobility measurements, neither in cross-sectional surveys nor in accessibility studies in Germany. We therefore need a practical instrument that makes it possible to combine a large number of these indicators, some of which are very different, in one procedure.

3 Indices as a Political Assessment Tool One method that allows complex socio-cultural phenomena, such as human development, freedom of expression or democracy, to be measured and normatively evaluated is index construction. Originally belonging more to the fields of political science and economics, the index is increasingly used as a social science methodology in the representation of structural and cultural factors (Pickel and Pickel 2012,

5RXWLQHV 0RELOLW\EHKDYLRXU

0RELOLW\

6WUXFWXUDO IUDPHZRUN FRQGLWLRQV

6XEMHFWLYH SHUFHSWLRQV

,QGLYLGXDO SUHUHTXLVLWHVIRU DFWLRQ

Fig. 10.2  Model of the influencing dimensions of mobility. (Own representation)

2EMHFWLYHSRVVLELOLW\ VSDFH

VXEMHFWLYHVFRSH

226

A. Rammert

p.  7). Among its best-known representatives is the Human Development Index, which is collected and evaluated worldwide by the United Nations (UN 2018). However, other index forms, such as the Bertelsmann Transformation Index, the Corruption Perception Index or the OECD’s Better Life Index, are used internationally to quantify complex phenomena and provide a planning basis for influencing them. This makes the index a suitable method for assessing mobility, since it is also a social, structural and cultural phenomenon, as outlined earlier. The term ‘index’ describes “the aggregation of several individual indicators into a new variable according to established rules” (Latcheva and Davidov 2014, p. 745). This ‘new variable’ is particularly characterized by the fact that it is not itself directly observable and thus not measurable – a key feature of mobility. It therefore seems appropriate to operationalize mobility with the help of an index in order to enable policy makers and planners to measure mobility on a large scale. The index construction is initially an evaluation procedure and not an independent survey or measurement procedure. Nevertheless, the collection and validation of data within the framework of indicator selection play a key role in determining the significance and quality of the subsequent index. In this sense, an index is a measure of the relative relationship of several indicators over time or in mutual comparison (Atteslander 2010, p. 227). Thus, a single index without context has only limited informative value, since it only unfolds its true function as an assessment tool through comparison. It should be noted here that assessment instruments always have a normative component. Thus, within the respective index methodology, we find a codification of what constitutes good human development, good democracy or, indeed, high mobility. As a result, the index’s constitution makes it particularly suitable as a political benchmarking tool to assess the performance of regions and countries (OECD 2008, p. 13); thus, it always has a spatial or temporal reference. Indices allow us to gain insights into syndromes, i.e., the multi-causal collection of phenomena, social and political conditions (Pickel and Pickel 2012, p. 2), which cannot be represented by single indicators or units of measurement. The central element of an index is the aggregation of different indicators into one quantity according to defined rules. These so-called aggregation rules define the quantitative process with arithmetical operations and weightings, which combine the individual indicators into a target variable. The advantage of indices over pure groupings of indicators are, in addition to the more clarity, the increase in the accuracy of measurement by combining several variables to measure a theoretical concept (Latcheva and Davidov 2014, p. 748). This is achieved by offsetting different inaccuracies in the measurement in the individual indicators, resulting in a reduction of measurement errors in the index

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

227

(Kromrey et al. 2016, p. 171 ff.). Even the inclusion of two different indicators reduces random measurement error, and the inclusion of three indicators even reduces systematic error in measurement (Latcheva and Davidov 2014, p.  749). Another advantage of the index, which results from a condensation of information and an accompanying reduction in complexity, is the avoidance of multicollinearity (Pickel and Pickel 2012, p. 1). Multicollinearity means that two or more indicators show a strong correlation with each other. For example, a strong correlation can be assumed between the indicators ‘average life expectancy’ and ‘scope of the health care system’, which is why, in a pure, non-aggregated list of indicators, they should not be on the same level as, for example, the level of human development. In this context, the index offers the possibility to weight correlating indicators accordingly or to exclude them completely, thus completely ruling out multi-­co-­ linearity. This is impressively shown by the example of the Human Development Index, which ultimately reduces the entire facet of human development to just four core indicators (UN 2018). In addition to the aforementioned advantages, however, an index construction is also associated with risks and disadvantages, which go hand in hand with the quantitative simplification process (OECD 2008, p. 13 f.). The first problem of indices is that the user is usually not aware of the underlying methods and information. They are inevitably truncated in the aggregation process, leaving room for interpretation. For example, most readers are unaware of the propositional logic of a Human Development Index or a Happiness Index, but which information and indicators are included in their constructions in which way is known to only a few. Accordingly, special attention must be paid to the transparency of the index construction as well as the communication of the information and methods included. This is the only way to prevent later misuse of the index as a policy tool. Thus, in addition to its pure calculation, a mobility index must always explain which indicators influence its value. Only in this way is it at all possible to integrate indices into planning processes as a fully-fledged evaluation procedure. The second risk of an index is that, through the simplicity of the quantitative value, it suggests an objective truth which in fact does not exist. Especially when indexing social or cultural phenomena, which are to a large extent characterized by qualitative criteria, quantification is inevitably an abridgement of reality and is therefore strictly rejected by some representatives of these disciplines (Wilde 2014, p. 33). The suggestion of objectivity, which is ubiquitously associated with quantitative values, is particularly problematic. For this reason, the quality criteria of science in general and the demands of empirical social research in particular must be respected exactly in the

228

A. Rammert

construction of the index. These are requirements that have not been met by previous mobility indices.6

3.1 Requirements and Quality Criteria of an Adequate Index Construction The basic scientific quality criteria apply to index construction, but validity, reliability, and transparency should be particularly emphasized (Pickel and Pickel 2012, p. 4). The validity of a theoretical or empirical model ensures that it de facto represents what it purports to represent. For example, an index for mobility should actually represent all sub-dimensions of mobility and not just traffic volume or accessibility. For the index construction, two levels of validity need to be considered (Kromrey et al. 2016, p. 186). First, semantic validity: does a conceptual definition translate into adequate indicators? Second, empirical validity: is a specific indicator really measured? Reliability in empirical social research stands for the stability of the measured values or the extent of dispersion in repeated measurements (Atteslander 2010, p. 229). If validity tests the adequate linkage of theory and empiricism, reliability ensures the adequacy of the measurement procedures. Particularly in the case of an index that represents a generally valid and long-term evaluation method, it is important that it repeatedly generates reliable statements. Reliability thus plays a central role, especially in the operationalization of indicators, and should be checked at regular intervals. By far the most elementary quality criterion in index construction is transparency. Especially since it is not an objective-statistical evaluation procedure, it is of even greater importance to disclose the argumentative-constructive process in its completeness. Each index represents a data reduction, which is why the informative value of an index always depends strongly on the methodology used (Rohwer and Pötter 2002, p. 65 ff.). In order to be able to evaluate an index on the basis of scientific quality criteria, it is therefore necessary to provide insight into the methods and data used. In addition to the theoretical foundation, transparency is thus a central requirement for scientific index construction (Latcheva and Davidov 2014, p. 752).

 In this context, particular reference should be made to the Federal States Mobility Index of the Pro-Rail Alliance and the Urban Mobility Readiness Index of Berkley University, which neither meet the requirements of mobility research nor the index construction. 6

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

229

If the quality criteria of validity, reliability, and transparency can usually only be tested during implementation, there are also general requirements from the theories of empirical science that define the framework of index construction. Helmut Kromrey et al. (2016, p. 163) formulate four fundamental requirements for this, which must also be observed for a mobility index: 1 . The theory needs an empirical reference and must be verifiable. 2. The terms in the theory must be precisely defined. 3. The terms must be linked to appropriate indicators. 4. The terms must be susceptible to being operationalized or observation operations must be specified. Applied to the mobility index, this means that the identified dimensions of influence on mobility must first be substantiated by means of practical investigations. For this purpose, it must be clearly defined what, exactly, the term ‘mobility’ means and, further, what constitutes high and low degrees of mobility. Only on the basis of this normative construct of mobility can an index subsequently be formed. The central requirement for the scientific validity of the index is then that the normative definition is always communicated transparently together with the index. This is the only way to ensure that the index continues to fulfill its actual target function. Conversely, policy makers and planners can then decide to what extent they want to support this normative definition of mobility and, consequently, use the index as a methodology or not. In addition to the concept of mobility, however, the sub-­ dimensions must also be precisely defined and linked to latent and measurable indicators. Only then is it at all possible to establish a causal-analytical correlation from the complex construct of mobility down to individual measurement indicators, such as walking distance to the supermarket or satisfaction with the living environment (see Fig. 10.3). This correlation has to be presented transparently in the form of indicator sets, correspondence rules and aggregation rules. In this sense, the correspondence rules represent the normative ciphers that link the indiCorrespondence rule Indicators manifest variables

1. Aggregation rule

2. Aggregation rule

Facts

Subindex

Index

latent variables

Partial dimensions

Total dimension

Fig. 10.3  Causality principle in the construction of a multidimensional index. (Own illustration)

230

A. Rammert

cator sets to the phenomenon to be represented. For example, the average weekly working hours of the population could correspond positively or negatively with a national production index, depending on the normative ideas behind it. In that they make use of a specific statistical calculation procedure, such as geometric averaging, the aggregation rules (UN 2018, p. 33) constitute a further normative component of indices. It remains to be mentioned that generally applicable construction rules play less of a role in index construction than the theoretical concept and the modeling of this concept (OECD 2008, p. 14). This means that depending on the object of investigation, entirely different aggregation and evaluation rules can be used, depending on whether education, happiness or mobility are to be indexed. Accordingly, the justification of an index ultimately also lies in the perception and acceptance of its audience. For this reason in particular, it is important to pay special attention to the quality criteria of validity, reliability and transparency, and to meet the general requirements of empirical social research at all times.

4 Quality Criteria for Scientific Mobility Indices Mobility is a complex social phenomenon, on that point there is interdisciplinary agreement. Furthermore, indices are a suitable methodology to make complex, non-measurable phenomena representable and comparable. It is therefore an obvious step to also represent mobility in the form of an index, especially since mobility planning to date lacks concrete planning instruments. But what are the requirements for operationalizing mobility in the form of an index? Which indicators can be used for this purpose and in what form should they be collected? These and other questions will be discussed in detail below. In doing so, the demands on a scientifically valid mobility index will be outlined, which, in contrast to the already existing transport and mobility indices, covers the entire spectrum of mobility research as well as the quality criteria of index construction. The aim is to obtain an evaluation procedure for mobility as well, which, analogous to established indices for human development or democracy, facilitates a comprehensive analysis and comparability of mobility.

4.1 Mobility-Specific Requirements for Indicators First of all, an operationalization of mobility for indices, but also for all other mobility-­related planning instruments, must take into account the complexity and

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

231

interdependence of mobility. This means that the insights of different disciplines into what constitutes mobility and how it is influenced must be included. Thus, any measurement and analysis procedures on mobility must encompass structural conditions, individual factors and subjective perceptions. Otherwise, such reduced procedures only inadequately represent the complex configuration of individual spaces of opportunity and should not be used for an adequate analysis of mobility (see footnote 5). The mobility-specific requirements for operationalization can be broken down to three key points. 1. Investigation of the structural framework of mobility For analyzing and influencing individual spaces of opportunity, the investigation of structural frameworks is fundamental. These structures determine in physical and socio-economic terms which places an individual can or cannot reach. This includes, in particular, the built environment, with its supply and transportation structures. In addition, ecological factors such as air and noise pollution or a high level of traffic insecurity also influence individual possibilities. Furthermore, economic factors, such as the costs for different means of transportation or the availability of jobs, determine which places an individual can or must frequent. Different methods already exist to capture these structural conditions, such as the accessibility analysis (Schwarze 2015), the environmental analysis (SenStadtUm 2017) or commuting surveys (Dauth and Haller 2016). Taken together, these procedures offer a comprehensive insight into the structural framework of individual mobility and thus form a central requirement of mobility-specific studies. 2. Investigation of the individual preconditions for one’s actions When it comes to describing people’s spaces of opportunity, the individual preconditions for one’s actions also play a central role. Analogous to the transportation system, in which a rail connection can only be used by a train and not by a passenger car, it is also true for the spatial structure that it can only be used under certain individual preconditions, such as adequate health, the ability to drive a vehicle or the availability of the financial means. The individual prerequisites are, so to speak, the key needed to be able to ‘open up’ certain places. Accordingly, in addition to the structural conditions, the individual preconditions of the local residents must also be examined in order to actually be able to make a statement about mobility. This includes socio-demographic factors, such as age, income and household structure, but also socio-cultural factors, such as milieu or social network. All these factors influence and even determine how we move and what options are available to us. A complete assessment of mobility therefore requires a detailed analysis of the individual preconditions.

232

A. Rammert

Classic examples from the field are cross-sectional surveys such as the socio-­ economic panel, Mobility in Germany, or SrV (Ahrens et al. 2014; Britzke and Schupp 2017; Nobis and Kuhnimhof 2017). 3. Investigating subjective perceptions. Finally, probably the most frequently neglected requirement of a comprehensive mobility analysis is the investigation of subjective perceptions. It is only by examining them that we can gain insight into the actual configuration of individual spaces of opportunity and often reveal unforeseen barriers and hurdles that limit people in their spaces of opportunity, based on specific ­perceptions (see Daubitz’s contribution in this volume). Very important here is subjective accessibility, which contextualizes the structural framework and individual preconditions with one’s own self-perception. But also the level of satisfaction with the living environment or the individual life situation represent important factors, which can limit or expand the possibilities. Finally, the perception of the social environment, such as family contact and the sense of community in the neighborhood, also plays a role that should not be neglected in terms of which possibilities for getting from place to place can be perceived at all. It turns out that people’s subjective perceptions can completely reverse objective conditions (Wilde 2014, p. 149 ff.), for example when a new bike lane on the roadway excludes certain user groups because fears prevent them from using this new infrastructure. Accordingly, we can only study people’s actual mobility if subjective perceptions are analyzed in addition to structural conditions and individual preconditions. However, since this cannot be captured in its accuracy by quantitative measurement methods or studies, few examples can be found to date that successfully operationalize subjective perceptions in practical planning. One example that systematically encompasses such factors is the ‘legacy study’ in Germany (Allmendinger 2017) or the studies on social exclusion in Australia (Currie et al. 2010). Although this poses a challenge to traditional quantitativebased planning, capturing subjective perceptions is a key element that distinguishes mobility planning from transportation or land-use planning. In summary, we can state that for any operationalization of mobility three central dimensions have to be considered: the structures, the individuals and their perceptions. Only when all three dimensions have been included in the survey, analysis and evaluation can we speak of fully-fledged mobility planning. In this respect, it is also true for procedures that make mobility measurable or assessable that all three dimensions must be examined. A mobility index thus requires indicators on the structural framework, the individual preconditions, and subjective perceptions.

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

233

4.2 Index-Specific Requirements for Indicators As already indicated in the section on index methodology, the construction of an index also entails specific requirements. For example, index construction is an evaluation procedure that combines indicators that have already been measured in a rule-based manner. The functionality of an index lies in particular in its large-­ scale applicability and only unfolds its effect if sufficient areas of comparison can be included. Furthermore, each index also contains a normative component in the sense that its correspondence and aggregation rules determine which indicators have a positive or negative effect on the index value. In this respect, an index always also performs a normative classification of all the indicators it contains. Based on the social science quality criteria for index methodology, the following four requirements for indicators can be identified: 1. Relevance Indicators that are used in any form to explain syndromes or phenomena must have a relevant impact on the variable being explained. This means that it must be shown for the respective indicators that they have an independent effect on the variable to be explained and that there is no multicollinearity. Only if an indicator has a positive or negative influence on the index size, independently of other indicators, is it to be classified as relevant. Thus, before an indicator can be used for an index, it must first be proven in practical tests, for example with the help of regression analyses, that it has a relevant effect on the variable to be explained without significant correlation. 2. Measurability Another requirement for indicators to be used within an index is measurability and subsequent quantifiability. In particular, since indices usually describe complex phenomena that cannot be measured scientifically, it is important that the constituent variables are clearly quantifiable and thus can actually index the non-measurable phenomenon. This means that qualitative methods and indicators can only be used for index calculation if the information can be reliably quantified in one step. Only if the indicators can be measured repeatedly, meeting the requirement of reliability, can they be used for an index. 3. Aggregability The claim of aggregability is a typical characteristic of index indicators, since the index methodology consists mainly in the aggregation of data and information. This means that the indicators must be collectable on a large scale in order to provide sufficient information for aggregation. This criterion also

234

A. Rammert

makes it difficult to use qualitative indicators that are costly to collect for an index, since their aggregability can only be achieved through inordinate survey effort. Thus, an indicator is only considered aggregable if it can be collected in large numbers in a (partially) representative manner. 4 . Rateability The fourth and most central requirement for indicators in index construction is their rateability. This is where the normativity of the procedure comes into play, in which a positive or negative effect on the variable to be explained is transparently assigned to the individual indicators. This allocation must of course be transparent and comprehensible, but also evidence-based. This means that it has to be demonstrated in practical studies why the respective indicator can be numerically rated, in addition to its relevance. The rateability of indicators is expressed in the sense that, for at least two measured values, it can be clearly determined which is ‘better’ and which is ‘worse’ in terms of the index size. It is only through this normative ciphering of indicators that their use in the context of indices is possible. Thus, before an indicator can be used for an index, its rateability must be shown transparently and presented in a comprehensible way. These four index-specific requirements for operationalization with indicators mean that a large number of variables influencing syndromes or phenomena cannot be included in the set of indicators. This is due to the fact that indices are always only model constructions, i.e., they do not describe precisely measurable phenomena such as human development, democracy or mobility. This simplification goes hand in hand with a rigorous indicator reduction – especially for qualitative factors – which leads to the fact that in the end only a few indicator variables that meet the four requirements presented can be used for a possible index.

5 Conclusion Based on the question to what extent the index methodology can help us to better integrate a systematic measurement of mobility in German planning practice and thus to methodically fill the guiding principle of public mobility with life, the requirements of mobility and of indices with regard to an operationalization were discussed. It was shown that both mobility and index methodology make clear demands on the indicators to be selected. In the future, these demands must be combined for a possible mobility index in order to provide a scientifically valid method to be set against the mobility indexing methods already in circulation. For this

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

235

purpose, the interdisciplinarity of mobility must be combined with the quality criteria of the index construction. To present such a complex index at this point would go beyond the scope of this chapter. Rather, only the scientific claims of an index-­ based mobility measurement in general play a role at first. The concrete design possibilities of a mobility index remain open at this point – depending on the interest in knowledge, the area of comparison and the availability of data. On the one hand, a mobility index could be used to enable large-scale comparisons between municipalities and cities in Europe, analogous to the Human Development Index. The goal of such an index would be to elevate mobility to a political target figure and thus expedite a strong dynamic of normative optimization. On the other hand, a possible mobility index could be used on a small-scale municipal level to identify possible ‘hot spots’ in one’s own municipality. In this form, the index could be designed to be more participatory, for example by having local citizens decide on the relevant indicators. For all operationalization options, it is important that all three constituent levels of mobility are included in the study. These include the contextual conditions in space and society, people’s individual preconditions, and their subjective perceptions of their own space of opportunities. Only when indicators from all three dimensions are included in the analysis can one speak of a fully-fledged mobility measurement. This applies in the same way to any mobility planning that is put into practice: procedures and methods that are to support the adequate establishment of public mobility must therefore include spatial and social structures, demographic and socio-cultural preconditions as well as subjective perceptions. The presented methodology of index construction represents an approach to how these mobility indicators can be combined within an evaluation methodology. A scientifically valid index procedure offers us the opportunity to transparently track demands and guiding principles, such as those of public mobility, and to identify needs for action or development potential. For this, however, it is important to observe the quality requirements regarding the underlying indicator set so that a mobility index meets the demands of scientific procedures for transparency, reliability and validity. Accordingly, the indicators for a mobility index must all be relevant, measurable, aggregable and assessable. Only then can we speak of a scientific mobility index. If we combine these index-specific requirements with those of mobility research, we obtain a checklist for the set of indicators for mobility measurement (see Fig. 10.4). This checklist gives mobility planners an indication of how they can construct their own mobility index and which indicators to investigate for this purpose. In conclusion, these considerations of a mobility index vividly illustrate the challenges facing the measurement of mobility within standardized planning and

236

A. Rammert Selection criteria Indicator set Mobility measurement

Indicators of the...

relevant

measurable aggregable

rateable

structural frameworks individual prerequisites for action subjective perceptions

Fig. 10.4  Exemplary checklist for the collection of valid indicators for mobility measurement. (Own illustration)

evaluation procedures. In particular, the multi-layered nature of mobility brings with it its own requirements that mobility-related procedures must take into account. Thus, mobility planning differs fundamentally from already established procedures in spatial or transport planning. Mobility brings together structural factors with individual prerequisites and subjective perceptions. On the one hand, this increases the complexity of the field of planning, but on the other hand, it facilitates new scope for action to influence mobility in a goal-oriented way and to operationalize public mobility. In this context, indices are a suitable method for shedding light on the black box of individual options and thus making mobility designable on the basis of evidence. It is clear that both mobility and possible procedures have their own specific requirements for operationalization. These requirements must be meticulously considered when designing new planning procedures. Otherwise, mobility will continue to be an empty phrase, faced with the reductionist procedures of transport and spatial planning, in which neither individual concerns nor subjective perceptions play a role.

References Ahrens, Gerd-Axel, F. Ließke, R. Wittwer, S. Hubrich und S. Wittig. 2014. Methodenbericht zum Forschungsprojekt „Mobilität in Städten–SrV 2013“. In: Im Auftrag von Städten, Verkehrsunternehmen, Verkehrsverbünden und Bundesländern, bearbeitet durch die Technische Universität Dresden, Lehrstuhl Verkehrs-und Infrastrukturplanung. Allmendinger, Jutta. 2017. Das Land, in dem wir leben wollen. Wie die Deutschen sich ihre Zukunft vorstellen. München: Pantheon. Altenburg, Sven, P.  Gaffron, C.  Gertz. 2009. Teilhabe zu ermöglichen bedeutet Mobilität zu ermöglichen. Diskussionspapier des Arbeitskreises Innovative Verkehrspolitik der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

237

Atteslander, Peter. 2010. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. BBSR. 2020. Erreichbarkeitsmodell des BBSR.  Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt und Raumforschung: https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Raumbeobachtung/ UeberRaumbeobachtung/Komponenten/Erreichbarkeitsmodell/erreichbarkeitsmodell_ node.htm. Accessed 20.07.2020. Becker, Udo J. 2018. Verkehr und Umwelt. In: Schwedes, Oliver (Hg.): Verkehrspolitik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 71–88. Beckmann, Klaus J., M.  Hesse, C.  Holz-Rau, M.  Hunecke. 2006. StadtLeben  – Wohnen, Mobilität und Lebensstil. Neue Perspektiven für Raumund Verkehrsentwicklung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden. BMBF. 2019. Karliczek: Wir gestalten Mobilität nachhaltig – mit Städten und Gemeinden gehen wir in der Forschung voran. Im Rahmen des Wettbewerbs „MobilitätsWerkStadt 2025“ nehmen 50 Mobilitätsmanager Arbeit auf. Berlin. Britzke, Janina, J. Schupp. 2017. SOEP Wave Report 2017. https://www.diw.de/documents/ publikationen/73/diw_01.c.592826.de/wave_report_2017.pdf. Accessed 20.07.2020. Busch-Geertsema, Annika, M.  Lanzendorf, H.  Müggenburg, M.  Wilde. 2016. Mobilitätsforschung aus der nachfrageorientierten Perspektive: Theorien, Erkenntnisse und Dynamiken des Verkehrshandelns. In: Schwedes, Oliver, W. Canzler, A. Knie (Hg.): Handbuch Verkehrspolitik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 755–774. Currie, Grahama, T. Richardson, P. Smyth, D. Vella-Brodrick, J. Hine, K. Lucas, J. Stanley, J. Morris, R. Kinnear, J. Stanley. 2010. Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne – Updated results. In: Research in Transportation Economics 29(1), S. 287–295. Dangschat, Jens S. 2018. Soziale Milieus in der Mobilitätsforschung. In: Barth, Bertram, B. Flaig, N. Schäuble, M. Tautscher (Hg.): Praxis der Sinus-Milieus®. Gegenwart und Zukunft eines modernen Gesellschafts- und Zielgruppenmodells. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 139–153. Daubitz, Stephan. 2017. Mobilität und soziale Exklusion: Ein Plädoyer für ein zielgruppenspezifisches Mobilitätsmanagement. In: Wilde, Mathias, M.  Gather, C.  Neiberger, J. Scheiner (Hg.): Verkehr und Mobilität zwischen Alltagspraxis und Planungstheorie. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, S. 53–64. Dauth, Wolfgang, P.  Haller. 2016. The valuation of changes in commuting distances. An analysis using georeferenced data. IAB-Discussion Paper. https://hdl.handle. net/10419/148861. Accessed 20.07.2020. Delbosc, Alexa, G. Currie. 2011. Transport problems that matter – social and psychological links to transport disadvantage. In: Journal of Transport Geography 19(1), S. 170–178. DeVos, Jonas de, T. Schwanen, V. van Acker, F. Witlox. 2013. Travel and Subjective Well-­ Being: A Focus on Findings, Methods and Future Research Needs. In: Transport Reviews 33(4), S. 421–442. FES (Hg.). 2019. Hürden auf dem Weg zur Zukunftsstadt. Strategien für eine integrierte Stadt- und Verkehrspolitik. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. FGSV  – Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen. 2015. Hinweise zu Mobilität und sozialer Exklusion. Forschungsstand zum Zusammenhang von Mobilitätsund Teilhabechancen. Köln: FGSV Verlag GmbH.

238

A. Rammert

FGSV – Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen. 2020. Organigramm der FGSV. https://www.fgsv.de/organigramm.html. Accessed 20.07.2020. Götz, Konrad, J.  Deffner, T.  Klinger. 2016. Mobilitätsstile und Mobilitätskulturen  – Erklärungspotentiale, Rezeption und Kritik. In: Schwedes, Oliver, W. Canzler, A. Knie (Hg.): Handbuch Verkehrspolitik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 781–804. Hine, Julian, M. Grieco. 2003. Scatters and clusters in time and space. Implications for delivering integrated and inclusive transport. In: Transport Policy (4), S. 299–306. Holz-Rau, Christian. 2019. CO2-Bepreisung und Entfernungspauschale. In: Internationales Verkehrswesen (4), S. 10–12. Jarass, Julia. 2012. Wohnstandortpräferenzen und Mobilitätsverhalten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kiba-Janiak, Maja, J. Witkowski. 2019. Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans: How Do They Work? In: Sustainability 11(17), S. 4605. Knoflacher, Hermann. 2009. Stehzeuge-Fahrzeuge: der Stau ist kein Verkehrsproblem. Böhlau Verlag Wien. Kromrey, Helmut; J.  Roose, J.  Strübing. 2016. Empirische Sozialforschung. Modelle und Methoden der standardisierten Datenerhebung und Datenauswertung mit Annotationen aus qualitativ-interpretativer Perspektive. Konstanz/München: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbh; UVK/Lucius. Kutter, Eckhard. 2010. Mobilitätsforschung  – wenig Hilfreich für die Problemlösung im Stadtverkehr. In: Verkehr und Technik, S. 3–7. Latcheva, Rossalina, E. Davidov. 2014. Skalen und Indizes. In: Baur, Nina, J. Blasius (Hg.): Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, S. 745–756. Lättman, Katrin, M. Friman, L. Olsson. 2016. Perceived Accessibility of Public Transport as a Potential Indicator of Social Inclusion. In: Social Inclusion 4(3), S. 36. Mäcke, Paul Artur. 1964. Das Prognoseverfahren in der Straßenverkehrsplanung. Gekürzte Fassung d. Habil.-Schr. Aachen, RWTH u.d.T.: Mäcke, Paul Arthur: Algorithmus der Verkehrsprognose. Wiesbaden/Berlin: Bauverl. Nobis, Claudia, T.  Kuhnimhof. 2017. Mobilität in Deutschland  – MiD Ergebnisbericht. Studie von infas, DLR, IVT und infas 360 im Auftrag des Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. Bonn/Berlin. Nordbakke, Susanne, T. Schwanen. 2015. Transport, unmet activity needs and wellbeing in later life: exploring the links. In: Transportation 42(6), S. 1129–1151. OECD. 2008. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD Publishing. Pickel, Susanne, G.  Pickel. 2012. Die Messung von Indizes in der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft – methodologische Spitzfindigkeit oder substantielle Notwendigkeit. In: Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 6(S1), S. 1–17. Rohwer, Götz, U.  Pötter. 2002. Methoden sozialwissenschaftlicher Datenkonstruktion. Weinheim: Juventa-Verl. Rupprecht Consult. 2020. Decision makers summary for Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan. Trialog Publishers.

10  Evaluating Public Mobility: Criteria for Mobility-Related Measurement…

239

Scheepers, C. E., G.C.W. Wendel-Vos, E.E.M.M. van Kempen, E. L. de Hollander, H. J. van Wijnen, J. Maas, F.R.J. den Hertog, B.A.M. Staatsen, H. L. Stipdonk, L.L.R. Int Panis, P.J.V. van Wesemael, A. J. Schuit. 2016. Perceived accessibility is an important factor in transport choice – Results from the AVENUE project. In: Journal of Transport & Health 3(1), S. 96–106. Scheiner, Joachim. 2016. Verkehrsgenese: Wie entsteht Verkehr? In: Schwedes, Oliver, W. Canzler, Weert, A. Knie (Hg.): Handbuch Verkehrspolitik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 679–700. Schlag, Bernhard. 2016. Automatisiertes Fahren im Straßenverkehr  – Offene Fragen aus Sicht der Psychologie. In: Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit 62, S. 94–98. Schwarze, Björn. 2015. Eine Methode zum Messen von Naherreichbarkeit in Kommunen. TU Dortmund: Dissertation. Schwedes, Oliver. 2018. Verkehrspolitik als Gesellschaftspolitik. In: ders. (Hg.): Verkehrspolitik. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 3–24. Schwedes, Oliver, A. Rammert. 2020a. Was ist Integrierte Verkehrsplanung? Hintergründe und Perspektiven einer am Menschen orientierten Planung. IVP-Discussion Paper. 2/2020. Berlin. Schwedes, Oliver, A.  Rammert. 2020b. Mobilitätsmanagement. Ein neues Handlungsfeld integrierter Verkehrspolitik und -planung. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Schwedes, Oliver, S.  Daubitz, A.  Rammert, B.  Sternkopf, M.  Hoor. 2018. Kleiner Begriffskanon der Mobilitätsforschung. Berlin. TU Berlin: Discussion Paper. Schwedes, Oliver, A. Rammert, B. Sternkopf,. 2017. Mobilitätsmanagement. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen verkehrspolitischer Gestaltung am Beispiel Mobilitätsmanagement. Berlin. TU Berlin: https://www.ivp.tu-­berlin.de/fileadmin/fg93/Forschung/Projekte/ Mobilit%C3%A4tsmanagement/Endbericht_MobMan.pdf, Abschlussbericht. Accessed 20.07.2020. SenStadtUm 2017. Basisbericht Umweltgerechtigkeit. Grundlagen für die sozialräumliche Umweltpolitik. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt: https://www.berlin.de/senuvk/umwelt/umweltgerechtigkeit/download/umweltgerechtigkeit_broschuere. pdf. Accessed 20.07.2020. Spinney, Jamie E.L., D. Scott, K.B. Newbold. 2009. Transport mobility benefits and quality of life: A time-use perspective of elderly Canadians. In: Transport Policy 16(1), S. 1–11. Stanley, John K., D.A. Hensher, J.R. Stanley, D. Vella-Brodrick. 2011. Mobility, social exclusion and well-being: Exploring the links. In: Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45(8), S. 789–801. Steierwald, Gerd, H. D. Künne, W. Vogt. 2005. Stadtverkehrsplanung. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. UN. 2018. Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018. United Nations. Vallée, Dirk (Hg.). 2008. Mobilität und Verkehr managen – aus der Forschung für die Praxis. Tagungsband zum 9. Aachener Kolloquium „Mobilität und Stadt“, AMUS 2008. Aachen: Inst. für Stadtbauwesen und Stadtverkehr. Voges, Wolfgang, O.  Jürgens, A.  Mauer, E.  Meyer. 2003. Methoden und Grundlagen des Lebenslagenansatzes. Endbericht. Bremen. Wilde, Mathias. 2014. Mobilität und Alltag. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

240

A. Rammert

Wilde, Mathias. M.  Gather, C.  Neiberger, J.  Scheiner (Hg.). 2017. Verkehr und Mobilität zwischen Alltagspraxis und Planungstheorie. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Wilde, Mathias, T. Klinger. 2017. Integrierte Mobilitäts- und Verkehrsforschung: zwischen Lebenspraxis und Planungspraxis. In: Wilde, Mathias, M.  Gather, C.  Neiberger, J.  Scheiner, Joachim (Hg.): Verkehr und Mobilität zwischen Alltagspraxis und Planungstheorie. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, S. 5–23. Wulfhorst, Gebhard, M.  Wolfram. 2010. Lernen von Frankreich? Die „Plans de Déplacements Urbains“ als Beispiel inkrementeller Steuerung. In: IÖR Texte (Steuerung einer nachhaltigen Verkehrsentwicklungsplanung in Deutschland), S. 23–26.

Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

11

Sven Hausigke and Carolin Kruse

Introduction The mobility of a person is determined by the number and quality of their opportunities – the space of opportunities. Hence, a person’s mobility is dependent on the external, public influencing factors that result from the transport system itself as well as the influence of spatial, social and economic factors (Schwedes et al. 2018, p. 5). Thus, in order to design mobility for everyone, the needs of the population and their spaces of opportunity must be taken into account in transportation planning. Even if it initially seems that the successive expansions of the road network – “down to the smallest village” (Gall 2005) – have met people’s mobility needs, it has to be said that this paradigm has also created a limited supply: a mono-modal dependence on the road network and the car. In postwar years, car-oriented transportation planning in cities of the Federal Republic of Germany created roads for the individual vehicle while neglecting or even dismantling public transportation. The divided city of Berlin is a good illustration of the phenomenon. In East Berlin, the existing streetcar infrastructure continued to operate; in West Berlin, however, the streetcar infrastructure was dismantled and roads and highways were built in its place. The negative consequences are well known: bad air quality, greenhouse gases, resource consumption, stress and obesity, to name just a few. The streetcar

S. Hausigke (*) C. Kruse Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_11

241

242

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

only found its way back into the West Berlin cityscape in the transport policy of the post-reunification period. With the increasing level of motorization (BMVI 2019; UBA 2020), transportation planning has primarily met the needs of the ‘new’ car drivers without questioning whether people actually prefer cars because they like to drive or because they no longer have an option. After more than 80 years of promoting the motor vehicle and still frequently planning for adaptation in transport, a focus on the needs of the population in transportation planning and applying needs-based transportation planning is long overdue (Schwedes and Hoor 2019). However, it is important not to consider them in isolation, but to reconcile them in the context of current policy fields such as the transformation towards an ecologically sustainable as well as socially just future - in other words, to take an integrated approach. It requires the involvement of all stakeholders in order to negotiate a common basis for the demands on public mobility. Mobility reporting can support such discursive and integrated development by helping to strategically reconsider transport policy and competently shape sustainable transport development. A strategic orientation implies an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to planning (see Schwedes’ contribution in this volume). It requires consolidation and coordination of goals across all disciplines to avoid counteracting policy goals in other departments and thus making local planning inherently contradictory. Therefore, the strategic orientation is based on the needs of the people, the interests of different actors and the societal goals. This chapter deals with the instrument known as mobility reporting, its goals, actors as well as possibilities of embedding it in the planning culture. The results originate from the research project MobilBericht.1 In this project, mobility reporting was developed for the first time and applied in the district of Berlin-Pankow in Germany.2

 This publication is based on research in the project MobilBericht, which was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research as part of its Social-Ecological Research funding priority, funding no. 01UR1703. Responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author. 2  The first Mobility Report of Berlin-Pankow made in 2021 is online available in German: https://www.berlin.de/ba-pankow/politik-und-verwaltung/aemter/stadtentwicklungsamt/ mobilbericht/mobilitaetsbericht_pankow_2020.pdf 1

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

243

1 Objectives of Mobility Reporting Mobility reporting serves mobility planning. It is a planning instrument that works as a supplement to conventional traffic and infrastructure planning, for transport planning that is more people-oriented. As a consequence, the transport system is designed in an integrated fashion. The current shortcoming of transport planning instruments is the focus on quantitative traffic data, i.e., on the temporal expression of changes in location, which neglects people and their motives for generating traffic in the first place (Schwedes et al. 2018, p. 17). Merely “counting” traffic does not reveal why people make traffic-relevant decisions – neither in their choice of transport mode, nor route planning. In order to be able to shape people’s mobility, planning is needed that is oriented toward people and their living environments. Thus, people’s mobility needs – i.e., the demands on the space of opportunities that are necessary to meet the specific needs of a person or a target group – become the focus of mobility planning (Schwedes et al. 2018, p. 34ff.). In terms of sustainable mobility, social equity and ecological compatibility (subparagraph 1 (1) Berlin Mobility Act) serve as normative guiding objectives for reporting. Social sustainability can only be created if social justice is improved (see the chapter by Daubitz in this volume). The capability approach is used as the basis for measuring equity in mobility,3 which strives to ensure that all people with and without disadvantages can live a good life according to their abilities for self-­ determination, in a solidary community (Sen 2012; Nussbaum 2010, 2012). It requires participation in planning that is intended to expand people’s opportunities for self-fulfillment and social cohesion. Prerequisites for avoiding social exclusion lie in the design of public mobility, which should offer equal opportunities for access to public services and participation in public life for all. Accessibility is given a legal entitlement through formal stipulations (see the article by Schwedes and Ringwald in this volume), so that mobility becomes a meritorious good in planning (Litman 2014). This means that government action should promote the provision of transport services and local public services, and thus avoid leaving it to purely market-based principles of supply and demand to meet the different mobility needs of all people. This also contributes to increased quality of life. The instrument of mobility reporting pursues the goal of enabling politics and administration to undertake goal-oriented transport planning. On the one hand, these actors are given the opportunity to achieve their political goals – e.g. climate targets, air and noise pollution reduction as well as changing the modal split. On  An overview of other equity approaches and their operationalization for transportation planning is provided by Creutzig et al. (2020). 3

244

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

the other hand, actors from civil society, especially at the local level, are increasingly opposing the problem-oriented, adaptive planning practiced by the public sector, in the name of demanding adequate consideration of all road users (see Schneidemesser’s chapter in this volume). The emerging efforts of the legislature in Berlin to address these grievances in the future through clearly defined, legally-­ anchored as well as ambitious strategies and measures for reorganizing transport must get as far as the executive branch of government (see the contribution article Kirchner in this volume; SenUVK 2020). Policymakers and authorities need instruments that can be used to develop appropriate, locally-specific measures based on comprehensive mobility studies and to implement them in practice in the short and long term. The public sector can actively shape public mobility in a goal-­ oriented manner by offering sufficient quality and quantity of modes of transport, public transport, and infrastructure for public services. Mobility reporting is an ongoing policy cycle (see Fig. 11.1). It starts with definition of the problems and studies, which lead to the determination of needs and objective setting (agenda setting). The goal is, on the one hand, to evaluate mobility in the area under study by operationalizing the influencing factors (see the article by Rammert in this volume) and, on the other hand, to shape it in line with the guiding principles. This is done by drawing up transport policy strategies derived from the guiding principle and assessing the status quo with the help of surveys and evaluation in a SWOT analysis,4 the result of which is in turn a derived concept of the measures to be implemented (see Sect. 11.2.2). Once the measures have been implemented, the mobility situation is evaluated, which in turn is the starting point for a new cycle. The implementation has to be monitored for quality assurance us-

Fig. 11.1  Policy cycle of mobility reporting. (Based on Claßen 2016)  Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

4

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

245

ing evaluation criteria, in order to be able to assess the achievement of the objectives in a subsequent report (Schwedes et al. 2017, p. 123). The process is accompanied by a mobility conference, which supports the reporting as an advisory body, in which decisions are coordinated and the approach is evaluated. Recommended participants include representatives of the administration, government and associations as well as external planners and experts to provide a neutral evaluation. Reports on data, transport policy goals, strategies and measures derived from them are published on a regular basis. This permanent process ensures consistent treatment of the topic, the integration of cycle-dependent key issues, and ongoing policy evaluation. The use of reporting for planning purposes is already established in the health and social sectors (RKI n.d.; Social Reporting Initiative e.V. 2014). They are enshrined in law and used by policymakers to make goal-driven decisions in the short, medium and long term. The reports are also intended to help in dealing with new events that are unexpected for planning purposes, i.e., to be able to make decisions on the basis of robust data. The example of the Covid-19 pandemic shows that immediate reporting is necessary to assess the situation and, based on this, to develop strategic measures that constitute an adequate response.

2 Involving Stakeholders in the Planning Process A wide range of actors must be involved in the deliberative development of mobility reporting: civil society with its needs and mobility requirements, the government with its normative decision-making power, and the administration as well as local businesses for the implementation of political decisions. Figure 11.2 provides an overview of the triangle of actors with their tasks, interests and communication possibilities. In addition to the possibility of holding elections, submitting residents’ inquiries and requests to local government, we have the active involvement of civil society in the planning process through mobility reporting. The distance between the authorities in transport planning and the needs of the people needs to be eliminated through active participation of interested and concerned citizens in the open-ended evaluation and implementation process. Thus, the people and their different mobility needs  – i.e. the road users  – become the focus of planning. Their subjective perception of mobility is influenced by aspects of infrastructure, traffic, and the spatial, physical, economic, and social conditions of mobility (Schwedes et  al. 2018, p. 5). They are the local experts when it comes to everyday traffic, so they can improve planning by participating in surveys about the state of the transport

246

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

Local government  Review of overarching goals  Coordinaon of responsibilies  Moderaon of civil society and polics  Interdepartmental cooperaon  Allocaon of financial resources     

Gubernave decisions Coalion Programme Parliamentary queson Allocaon of financial resources Decisions

 Applicaon of mobility reporng

       

 Acve engangement in parcipaon processes Parcipaon in informaon events Submi‡ng requests Demands on the administraon Statements on planning procedures

   

Mobility Reporng

Coordinaon and networking Data collecon Spaal and needs analysis Target operaonalisaon Parcipaon SWOT-analysis Concept of measures Evaluaon

Social, environmental, health, economic, transport and infrastructure data

 Implementaon of mobility-related measures  Answering enquiries

 Statement  Reports  Responses

 Talks / Consultaon hours  Legimaon of decisions

Local polics     

Normave guidelines for mobility Polical discourse on goals Strategic profiling through goals in transport policy Legimaon through decisions Formaon of topic-specific commiees

    

Elecon Counng Community Demands to policians/pares Residents' inquiry/proposal Cizens' peon/referendum Right to speak in commi„ee

Civil society  Demands on mobility  User of the infrastructure and producer of traffic  People affected by decisions  Desire for parcipaon in planning and decision-making  Formaon of interest groups

Fig. 11.2  Overview of existing possibilities of influencing the design of the transportation system and the classification of mobility reporting (BezVwG 2011)

system (Rammert 2019b, p. 86). By empowering civic engagement, the users’ perspective becomes part of planning, which is intended to reduce the dissension between the wishes of the population and planning practice. The evaluation of mobility consists of the perception of the population and the assessments of experts in

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

247

government, administration, and research.5 This configuration enables planners to better understand the manifold interdependencies and the options for action that are target group-specific. Transparency of the planning process and participation of local people can result in higher legitimacy of planning results and contribute to the acceptance of the implementation of measures. Citizens are increasingly organizing themselves in social initiatives, as illustrated by the example of Berlin-Pankow. Through demands submitted to local ­government, proposals for restructuring measures, and public relations work, various citizens’ initiatives make their needs and desires for change known. They represent a large number of people with very different interests, such as groups opposing heavy traffic in their residential street (Verein für nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung e. V. 2019), demanding safe bicycle facilities (Changing ­Cities e. V. 2020), espousing better public transportation in suburban areas (Bucher Bürgerverein e. V. 2020) and parents advocating safe routes to school for their children (Kargl 2020). However, not all individuals participate in organized communities, but their demands to adapt the transport system are nevertheless target group-specific. Socially disadvantaged individuals in particular have fewer opportunities to take part in events (Böhnke 2010). Mobility reporting actively involves and addresses these groups of people, allowing them to participate in the evaluation and redesign of their neighborhoods (Schlosberg 2007). By integrating a variety of target groups with different mobility demands, different subjective mobility needs of a large cross-section of the population are encompassed. This is necessary in order to design public mobility in a comprehensive and integrative way. By using the same methods, the results become comparable and can be contextualized.

2.1 Participation in Mobility Reporting Survey Methods Participatory methods can be used to survey and evaluate people’s subjective spaces of opportunity in interviews. Especially through qualitative surveys, people can participate in the co-production of knowledge to contribute to the reflective assessment of the status quo (West et al. 2016).6 The subjective space of opportunities can be analyzed in an exploratory fashion in order to determine the crucial influencing factors that restrict and promote sustainable mobility in line with the guiding principles. In particular, the qualitative methods offer access to target  This constellation is called a multi-actor partnership (GIZ n.d.).  For a detailed description of the qualitative survey methods and subsequent SWOT analysis, see Kruse et al. (2020). 5

6

248

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

groups with mobility restrictions, in order to analyze perceived disadvantages and requirements for access. Limitations can be the result of socio-economic, spatial, physical, psychological or social disadvantages. This affects, for example, people with (temporary) disabilities, children, people living in poverty, people with transport needs, non-native speakers or senior citizens, who do not have full access to all means of transportation and infrastructure, time flexibility, orientation options, access to digitalized services, or solutions to everyday conflict situations in transportation. This approach makes the local knowledge of residents available to planners. To adequately gather information on mobility needs in interviews, the methods of participant observation and community mapping were used (Kruse et al. 2020). In participant observation, people drive or walk their everyday routes, record this on camera and are accompanied by interviewers. Based on this, the journey is ­reflected on in an ex post-interview and – in addition to general questions on the perception of mobility – the focus is placed on individual behavior in coping with conflict situations. The interview also asks for a qualitative assessment of transport, e.g. accessibility of the infrastructure and means of transport, as well as their availability in terms of time or reliability. In community mapping, the map is the medium for gathering comprehensive information on mobility in interviews. By marking the locations of public services, the routes and means of transport used to reach the places in questions, the participants gain an image of their own radius of action, which they can then reflect on. Subsequently, as in the case of participant observation, the mobility of the people in question is investigated in guided interviews in order to generate as many insights as possible from the subjective perceptions, transport-relevant decisions, and transport behavior. Suggestions for recommendations for action can also be derived from the interviews and discussed in groups. Furthermore, quantitative survey methods are used in mobility reporting to enhance the previous traffic-related surveys by adding aspects of mobility. Accessibility analyses are often car-oriented, so that commuting areas and poorly developed municipal areas can be determined for this means of transport, but the fact that motor vehicles are only available to a limited number of citizens and have many external costs is not taken into account. Conducting accessibility analyses of environmentally-friendly modes of transport provides broader insight into people’s space of opportunities, illustrating in which areas opportunities for access need to be improved, especially for people with mobility impairments. A general improvement in accessibility using environmentally-friendly modes of transport is achieved by supporting local mobility, which is encouraged by an activity-friendly streetscape design, a dense network of routes, a variety of destinations, and high

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

249

density of housing and employment (Transport for London 2005; Ewing and Cervero 2010). An environmental justice analysis is also used to examine the impacts of traffic on residents, in the form of emissions. The state is responsible for protecting people from emissions that restrict their freedom, impair their health, and harm the environment, and is meant to intervene at an early stage to avert negative developments (duty of care by the welfare state, Article 20 (1) of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany). Emissions from motorized traffic have a considerable influence on people’s health and thus on subjective well-being (Wildavsky 1997), so local sites where the emissions level is high, especially those where the limits are exceeded, must be identified and pollution levels reduced (Schultz 2009). At the same time, the extent to which people in socio-economically precarious locations are affected by emissions is examined with the aim of achieving d­ istributive justice in socio-spatial inequalities (Lippl 2003) and to prevent the accumulation of disadvantages (Preisendörfer 2002). People living in poverty have fewer options for escaping this situation, due to a limited space of opportunities and, as a result, they are especially affected by harmful emissions (Schröder-Bäck 2012). By identifying the sources of emissions, and following the polluter-pays principle, the motorized vehicles responsible for the emissions should pay for these external costs, thus providing an impulse to make them more efficient and replace them with other modes of transport (Walker 2012). Another method to gather extensive subjective evaluations of mobility is a quantitative survey. The survey in question was conducted in the district of Pankow in 2018/19, in conjunction with the quinquennial SrV-survey7 in Berlin and generates findings in the topics of perceptions of the local neighborhood, accessibility, mobility constraints, and well-being. Incorporating SrV-data makes it possible to link perceptions of mobility to transportation-related decision-making. The data can also be used to identify social exclusion. The strengths and weaknesses for residents’ mobility and participation, as well as their influencing factors, can be surveyed on the level of an entire community in order to identify problem areas that need to be prioritized for redesign. The quantitative and qualitative data sources are part of a mixed-methods approach in which qualitative and quantitative data are generated, reconciled, and the results of the analysis are merged (see Fig. 11.3). The data are supplemented by secondary data from the transportation system that are relevant for mobility reporting. Quantitative methods allow for a spatial, intra-municipal comparison in order  System repräsentativer Verkehrsbefragungen (System of Representative Transport Surveys). 7

250

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

Fig. 11.3  The qualitative and quantitative methods of the mixed-methods approach from the MobilBericht project, the results of which flow into the SWOT-analysis. (Own illustration)

to identify focus areas where mobility is problematic. Qualitative methods are used to explore perceptions and causes on a local sample basis, to record needs specific to groups of people, and to identify other influencing factors relevant to mobility. Conversely, hypotheses developed by qualitative data can be validated by quantitative data to prevent policy misinterpretations. Thus, the two types of method can have a complementary effect in a subject area and the research designs can be coordinated to take advantage of both methodological approaches. This makes it possible not only to uncover problems, but also to explore causes. The results of the analysis and the planning process depend on the quality of the data. For a plausible and comprehensive mobility report, special emphasis should be placed on the stage of data collection. Decisions affecting road space are discussed in various media, among the population and in government, so it is important that the data meet the criteria of scientific quality, such as completeness, transparency and accuracy (Flick 2017, p. 490). The methods are suitable for efficient planning and make it possible to identify weaknesses and opportunities at an early stage. Thus, policy makers and authorities

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

251

need to be involved in the initial deliberations on the basic reporting requirements. Suitable for this purpose are focus groups involving citizens and interest groups, along with politicians and administrators. It is advisable to separate the heterogeneous areas of a municipality into homogeneous study areas when dealing with mobility in order to be able to evaluate the situation in the different areas in a differentiated manner. It can lead to more detailed discussions about strengths, weaknesses, and visions. In focus interviews and group discussions, the methodological procedure to determine the mobility of the participants was also presented and discussed, in order to get their views on adapting the procedure to local conditions. Involvement at an early stage makes it possible to uncover potential resistance at the beginning of the process and to resolve it through collective discourse.

2.2 Participation in the SWOT-Analysis for Developing Strategies and Measures Based on the results of the focus groups, the recommendation is to develop and publish a paper describing the guidelines for the implementation of the instrument and the normative goals. For the first cycle of mobility reporting (Fig. 11.1), focus topics were defined for intensive investigation in Berlin-Pankow. At a later stage, in order to maintain transparency in the process, the current status of the reporting is meant to be presented and discussed in committees, in administrative bodies as well as via public relations work in exchange with the local population. The coordination of government and administration is crucial, since the possibilities offered by the instrument must be understood and internalized by all actors involved in order to be able to use the capabilities, by allocating sufficient personnel and financial resources. After the step of data collection via the mixed-methods approach, the data are compiled using a SWOT-analysis (Rammert et al. 2019; Kruse et al. 2020). This method of analysis is a standardized procedure for verbal-argumentative evaluation of information based on an overarching guiding principle and its target criteria. For sustainable (urban) mobility as the guiding principle, the following target criteria have emerged: socially just, diverse and local, environmentally friendly and resource saving, readily accessible, as well as healthy and safe. These criteria are then used to design the transport system in a strategic-normative fashion. In the process of analysis, after evaluating the status quo and comparing this current state with the target state in line with the guiding principle, strategies are developed to advance the goal-oriented development of the transportation system. For this purpose, measures are developed in cooperation with stakeholders from government,

252

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

administration and the relevant operators of public infrastructure and transport services. In the case of Pankow, these are: • politicians from the district • administrators at district and state level due to the distribution of responsibilities in transportation • The BVG (Berlin Transport Company) as a local transport company and infraVelo as a state-owned company for the improvement of cycling infrastructure – i.e. local companies involved in environmentally-friendly modes of transport. Based on the strategies identified, concrete measures are elaborated, prioritized, and responsibilities coordinated in a creative discourse in the form of a World Café in order to implement sustainable urban mobility (Chang and Chen 2015). On the one hand, the political will is the decisive initiator for the introduction of the instrument in the administration; on the other hand, government should be permanently involved as an essential component in the elaboration process of the mobility report. In principle, the government has the power to set goals for the design of public mobility. Therefore, during the implementation of the instrument and subsequently the measures that flow from it, the political coalition on the municipal level must be involved so that measures can be adapted to local conditions by means of petitions and resolutions passed at political meetings. The analysis of studies provides the politicians with well-founded information, which provides the basis for consistent decisions in line with the guiding principles. The politicians must adopt the jointly developed measures and pass resolutions designed to remove any weak points that are detrimental to the guiding principle of sustainable urban mobility. Municipal transport policy cannot be designed freely, but must also take into account the goals of the respective state, federal, and EU transport policies. Only by integrating these goals does work on transport policy at the municipal level acquire legitimacy. Mobility reporting on the municipal level is hierarchically the lowest level of policy-design and ultimately has the task of putting into practice the specified and self-imposed goals in the local transport system. The municipal administration – as the executive – has the tasks of implementing, coordinating, and communicating decisions. It is a crucial actor in the development of mobility reporting and is thus empowered to fulfill its role of providing policy advice (Brand and Michelsen 2007). The central element of successful implementation is a mobility manager or a group of people who initiate and coordinate the tasks and steps in the processes and proactively involve all stakeholders.

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

253

To this end, other administrative units are to be involved as public stakeholders responsible for inter-departmental cooperation in identifying needs and implementing measures in order to do justice to integrated planning on an interdisciplinary level and to simplify the implementation process. Relevant administrative units for public mobility include the departments of transportation, city development, health, social affairs and environment. As one of the products of mobility reporting, the mobility report should be usable for all stakeholders. To make the mobility report accessible to all interested parties and those in positions of responsibility in a suitable way, digital options in easily-understandable language are recommended, in addition to a clear and concise report. The report is meant to be used by the government and administrative authorities as well as the population at large to highlight action for public mobility. Mobility reporting serves as a transparent evaluation so that civil society can understand the implementation process and the government can reflect on and discuss the agenda. In doing so, the administration fulfills its task of advising the government and at the same time involves the citizens in the development process.

3 Classification of Mobility Reporting in the Field of Transport Planning Instruments Several transport planning instruments already exist to conduct integrated planning for the transport system across modes at the municipal level (SRL 2020). However, unchanged CO2−emission levels and enforced driving bans have shown that they are not applied effectively (BMU 2019, p. 61; European Court of Auditors 2020, p. 5). To empower local governments to efficiently implement negotiated transportation policy goals, planners must be provided with appropriate instruments, adequate staff, and funding for implementation. The instruments serve to support decision-­making and provide policymakers with transparent advice, enabling them to make well-founded and goal-oriented trade-offs in choosing between the available measures, thus aiding in shaping public mobility. The comparison of mobility reporting with the previously established instruments of transport planning is intended to show how the instruments differ from each other, in order to understand why mobility reporting might be a suitable instrument for municipalities for transport planning, with a focus on mobility.

254

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

3.1 Traffic Development Plans and Their Further Development in Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans In planning practice, several transport planning instruments already exist in Germany, such as the Traffic Development Plans (TDP), the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP) and the Climate Protection Transport Concepts (CPTC). The oldest instrument is the TDP, which over the past decades has evolved from a classic planning instrument (FGSV 2001, 2013; Ahrens 2008) to one that integrates the changing requirements for planning and, in particular, sustainable development, as well as changes in societal perception (Wolfram 2009). The TDP adopts the specifications of a SUMP developed at the EU level (GPSM 2015; Rupprecht Consult 2019; Arndt and Drews 2019)  – i.e., in a circular planning process designed to shape transport through integrated and goal-oriented planning (Rammert 2019a). Its adoption started a process of assimilating the methodological and policy design of TDP in the direction of SUMP, so that nowadays established TDP increasingly focus on mobility as dimension of design,8 and take an inter-agency, inter-modal, interdisciplinary approach. A quinquennial cycle is recommended for an update of the report in order to bring the assessment up-to-date, on the basis of the analysis (GPSM 2015), a rhythm which is similar to the planning horizon of mobility reporting. Due to its long-lasting monopoly, this planning instrument is well-­established and is applied in various forms (Arndt and Drews 2019), such as in the Transport Development Plan in Berlin, which was initially published in 2003, revised in its second progress report (SenUVK 2011), and in 2021 published in its third, revised version. The TDP builds on results of formal sectoral planning instruments such as the Clean Air Plan, the Noise Action Plan and Local Transport Plans, but is itself an informal sectoral plan that is, however, considered as a prerequisite for funding, for instance under the terms of the Municipal Transport Financing Act. The plans are extremely important, because their results constitute the binding basis for formal sectoral plans, such as the zoning plan and the land use plan and also serve as an interface to other informal sectoral plans for integrated urban development (FGSV 2013). Despite all this, the TDP is still mainly focused on the goals of motor vehicle traffic performance, flow, speed, prediction, and infrastructure, which results in a less integrated approach. The overarching goal of sustainability is not being pursued effectively, due to too little attention devoted to avoiding automobile traffic and wholly inadequate subsidies for environmentally-friendly modes of transport.  See the renaming of City Development Plan Traffic in Berlin to City Development Plan Mobility and Traffic by the Berlin Mobility Act. 8

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

255

The conflicting goals are the result of a transport system that is focused on automobility, which minimizes the accessibility of road space for environmentally-friendly modes of transport, reduces local mobility through the loss of density and diversity in land and building use, at the same time reducing traffic safety, creating a barrier to access for people through the high costs of and requirements for driving a car, and leading to more motorized individual traffic, with the collateral consequences of higher emissions and lower levels of mobility (Litman 2011). By focusing on traffic as opposed to mobility reporting, TDP have the advantage of higher scalability because, even at smaller scale levels such as metropolitan regions, traffic can be measured better than the mobility of individual groups of people, whose needs arise primarily in the residential environment. The TDP is fed by quantitative data on traffic, which is used to generate traffic models for predictions. Cost-­benefit analyses for construction projects are a central component of the evaluation of projects, which, while economically efficient, has to be subjected to critical ­questioning, especially when it comes to quantifying the benefits. Furthermore, a lot of data regarding traffic and people’s mobility are only estimated, resulting in a pseudo-quantification, the informational value of which remains uncertain, especially for a goal-oriented design. Although the instrument is already translated as “Mobility Master Planning” in order to bring it closer to the European SUMP (GPSM 2015; FIS 2018), people’s mobility still remains inconsistently studied, except for quantitative surveys on transport purpose, so that little attention is paid to the causes of motor vehicle traffic. Traffic is legitimized – in part due to the fact that traffic planning decisions can be challenged in the courts – by the status quo, from which future developments can supposedly be predicted (GPSM 2015, p. 21 ff.). This renders goal-oriented, directive planning – away from anticipated traffic developments and toward the desired, transport-related decisions  – impossible. Traffic models provide the central basis for distributing road space, to the advantage of motor vehicles, with the remaining space allotted to the residual modes of transport (Creutzig et al. 2020, p. 2). However, in line with the goal of sustainable mobility, the traffic models should only be used as a supplement for dimensioning, especially for infrastructures of environmentally-friendly modes of transport, and only once all the quality requirements of the users – such as safety and comfort – have been taken into account, in order to meet their mobility needs. The transport services provided by the environmentally-friendly modes of transport are only marginally taken into account, due to the lack of comprehensive censuses of all modes of transport. As a final point, participation in engineering-focused traffic planning is understood more as an exchange of information designed to increase the acceptance of decisions made by engineers (Rupprecht Consult 2019, p. 10), rather than involving residents in the analysis of problems as well as in the collec-

256

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

tion of data, and asking them to assess their mobility. This results in a process of persuasion rather than a process of negotiation between transport planners and interested citizens. The EU-funded SUMP instrument is very similar to mobility reporting in terms of policy, objective, and structure (Arndt and Drews 2019). SUMP pursues the same goals as mobility reporting, with accessibility and quality of life as well as social equity, the promotion of health, and environmental friendliness (Rupprecht Consult 2019). The only difference is that the SUMP explicitly mentions economic performance as a goal and calls for a holistic financing concept as a step in the process, while mobility reporting additionally addresses the goal of a diverse city and explicitly integrates urban planning. The comprehensive approach to sustainability of both instruments promotes interdisciplinarity and demands inter-agency collaboration to process the plan, leading to greater acceptance and a more integrative view. Eco-modes of transport benefit in both instruments from the focus on the environmental compatibility of transportation. Both planning instruments are flexible in the delineation of the area under study; however, functional and administrative boundaries should largely coincide, so as to establish connections between transport policy and administrative authority, and to enable people to identify with the area in which they live, in order to evaluate their local mobility. The major difference that distinguishes the two concepts of a transport planning instrument is the pre-scripted process of the SUMP, with its extensive formal requirements (Rupprecht Consult 2019), compared to the flexible, goal-oriented, problem-specific, adapted procedure and the selection of survey methods characteristic of mobility reporting. The well-structured sequence of procedural steps for the implementation of the SUMP can be used as an orientation for mobility reporting, but they should not be prescriptive, nor should they be a measure of the quality of the plan, since requirement in the municipalities are very different. The planning practice of TDP shows that not all strategic-conceptual procedural steps are applied anyway (Thiele 2018), so a more flexible structure is more realistic. A less demanding procedure means a lower obstacle to setting up a mobility report, instead of meeting all the requirements of a SUMP.  While SUMP postulates to plan with a focus on people (Rupprecht Consult 2019, p. 10), the data acquisition is not focused on an assessment of mobility needs. By focusing on data gathering on traffic instead of factors influencing mobility, modeling and scenario techniques are used to predict traffic (ibid., p. 81 ff.). The influence of transport-related decisions is thus lost from sight. Furthermore, mobility reporting uses the advisory body of a regular mobility conference, with external planners and experts to steer the process, to coordinate the inter-agency cooperation, and to evaluate implementations.

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

257

3.2 Climate Protection Transport Concepts as Transport Planning Instrument The integrated climate protection plans, which emerged through the establishment of the National Climate Protection Initiative in 2008 and are funded by the federal government, have the possibility of sectoral planning for separate transport concepts to promote climate protection, which are also referred to as environmentally friendly concepts of mobility. The reason they were introduced is the constantly increasing share of transport in total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Germany, due to growth in motor vehicle traffic and the lack of concepts for transport planning, especially in smaller municipalities (DIfU 2018). Their design is not a policy cycle, but rather begins with the decision for a sectoral plan and ends with the implementation of technical-constructional measures. The climate protection-­oriented funding is temporary, in consequence the municipality should take over the instrument independently, in a roll-over strategy. Mobility reporting and the CPTC are similar in their structure, in policy, flexible focus topics as well as their methods of evaluation. Likewise, a qualitative analysis of the current situation can be carried out for both instruments, and the results combined in a SWOT analysis. In addition to the CPTC, the position of the climate protection manager is funded by the federal program and can specialize in transport, which correlates with the tasks profile of the mobility manager for mobility reporting (see Sect. 11.4.1). The CPTC is focused on the reduction of GHG (BMU 2017; DIfU 2018). Due to the focus on climate protection, human mobility plays an important role, but the goals of social justice or health promotion are only implicitly pursued and are not a central criterion in goal-setting. As a result, transport-related decisions and participation of the population are assigned a minor function in the evaluation of the status quo.

3.3 Gain for Transport Planning Instruments by Mobility Reporting All of the studied transport planning instruments are informal and require the political will in order for them to be applied. There is significant overlapping with other instruments in the procedures and in the intention to use reporting to initiate an iterative planning cycle in the direction of permanent, strategic, and adaptive transport policy. The rotational update can have a medium-term planning horizon of about 5  years, although TDP cycles tend to be more long-term with up to 15  years; while CPTP, SUMP, and mobility reporting can also be shorter-term,

258

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

starting at 2 years. Only in the phase of the SWOT analysis does mobility reporting follow a predetermined sequence for normative integration (Schwedes and Rammert 2020, p. 26 ff.), allowing more flexibility in the choice of data collection methods and elements for analysis. Particularly in the second part of the policy cycle – quality assurance through the implementation of measures – the objectives can be implemented and the process evaluated, with consultation of all stakeholders at the mobility conference. However, due to the lack of evaluation of mobility in the municipalities so far, there is now a need for data to be collected independently, and with increased effort. Quantitative evaluation methods such as scenario analyses and cost-benefit analyses are not envisaged, which means that neo-liberal planning logics of economic efficiency and effectiveness have at least been breached. For the independent consideration of freight transport or the calculation of GHG emission savings, other, previously established transport planning methods have to be used. When considering public mobility, the focus of mobility reporting is therefore less on cost-intensive, infrastructure-creating measures, but rather on mobility-influencing and traffic-controlling measures that are in keeping with the limited financial resources of the administrations. A new understanding of public mobility and its goals is required, especially amongst groups of actors in government and administration. In this context, mobility reporting follows the recommendations on the requirement for the design of planning instruments such as (long-term) strategic concepts, inter-sectoral and multi-agency concepts, concepts of land use, climate and environmental protection or concepts of organization and management (SRL 2020, p. 61). As a final point, a comparative assessment of the new transport planning instrument and the established ones, from the perspective of the individual groups of stakeholders: From the perspective of the population: By taking an approach that leads away from counting traffic objects and toward gathering data on subjective mobility needs, people are once again the focus of investigation in transportation planning. While all planning instruments are aimed at mobility sufficiency, no instrument focuses on people’s mobility for this purpose. The participation of citizens and interest groups or associations in the phases of defining problems and goals, the status quo survey, and in the development of measures enables official planning to achieve a higher level of democratic acceptance and thus lower a potential for conflicts. In particular, the inclusion of the user perspective of mobility-impaired people in the evaluation of eco-modes and local mobility can contribute to social cohesion and is apt to promote the use of these modes of transport. Mobility reporting brings social and ecological goals back into the foreground, in order to be able

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

259

to break away from ways of thinking dominated by economic efficiency and strengthen the social discourse on ways of living together. From the perspective of the administration: Mobility reporting enables the public administration to comprehensively perform its task of providing policy advice and goal-oriented transport planning. Inter-agency and inter-departmental cooperation constitutes an opportunity for professional integration, to be able to approach the issues that arise in an interdisciplinary manner and to find creative and appropriate solutions, working in cooperation (Schwedes and Rammert 2020, p. 34 ff.). However, these new opportunities and collaborations should be understood as a benefit and not as an additional burden, because otherwise resistance arises, which will further complicate the process of collaboration (Alt 2018, p. 10 ff.). By employing a mobility manager, networking can be organized centrally and the citizens then have a contact person, providing relief for other departments. The early ­involvement of local transport companies in the processes of policy development and planning enables a conflict-preventive approach to the implementation of measures, conflicts that, in the past often arose as the result of the executive being presented with guidelines for implementation. From the perspective of the government: Mobility reporting provides politicians with a comprehensive basis on which to weigh up transport policy decisions. By bringing people’s mobility into transport policy decisions, mobility policy becomes a policy of participation, taking social justice into account and enabling a broad social discourse. The participation of groups of people with mobility impairments creates an inclusive policy that aims to reduce the perceived distance between people and government, and strengthens democracy (Böhnke 2010). Politically and spatially integrated transport planning brings together all the actors and interest groups involved, at the relevant levels of planning, so that political decisions receive support not just from a larger group but also on different levels of government and the administration (Schwedes and Rammert 2020, p. 30 ff.). For the perception and implementation of the scope for design of public mobility by the administration and government, mobility reporting offers a suitable instrument for policy formulation and implementation, due to its objectives, the analysis of mobility needs, and a comprehensive overview of the fields of action. It compensates for the current shortcomings of planning instruments, which consider traffic rather than mobility as a design dimension in the transport system. This requires a corresponding will to shape transport policy and planning. The inconsistent implementation of transport policy goals in strategies and the accompanying measures needs to be remedied by the use of pull-and-push measures, thus closing the gap in the possibilities for taking action.

260

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

4 Structural Establishment of Mobility Reporting A central challenge for establishing a new transport planning instrument is to implement it in the prevailing planning practices and to increase acceptance for new impulses. First, the relevant figures in government and administration must be convinced that there is a need for action in order to strategically realign transport policy. In addition, those in the field of planning practice must learn how to handle a new planning instrument, in order to be able to apply it in an optimal fashion. The prerequisite for this is for mobility to be thematically differentiated from traffic and an integrated approach to the problem is adopted. The aim is to design public mobility. For transport planning, reporting provides important, up-to-date, qualitative, and quantitative data and information on the state of the transport system, reviews and revises the guiding principle and its target criteria in collaboration with all stakeholders, and finally brings together the target and actual states by operationalizing them in strategies and measures. The administration is responsible for allocating resources for the implementation of suitable measures, in order to adapt the transport system to the mobility needs of the people in line with the guiding principle of sustainable mobility.

4.1 Personnel and Financial Establishment of Mobility Reporting A crucial need for successful implementation lies in the staffing and funding of the instrument and its resulting measures, for action in transport policy. Acceptance of sustainable mobility already exists to a great degree, but at the same time the obstacles that slow down the process and weaken its impact keep becoming apparent (FES 2019). A commitment on the part of all stakeholders, as well as allocation of financial and human resources by policymakers to institutionalize this planning instrument are necessary to ensure successful implementation at all levels (European Court of Auditors 2020, p. 5). Financially, external funding should be acquired in addition to the municipality’s own resources. In addition to funding for specific measures, personnel can also be recruited to establish a mobility management team. Further funding at national or federal state-level for the establishment and operation of mobility reporting and the implementation of measures promotes the use of the instrument and demonstrates the political will to shape mobility. For the planning instrument to be successfully established in the administration, a person is needed who has an excellent command of the new planning instrument.

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

261

This person has the task of recruiting other contact people, initiators, and people responsible for mobility in planning and for coordinating the implementation of the instrument and the measures that flow from it. The mobility manager is required to initiate, coordinate, and supervise the implementation of the measures developed in the mobility report in order to give shape to public mobility. Communication channels must be established to address and resolve responsibilities, budgets, funding sources, and any other requirements. The new field of action of mobility should not be subordinated to the existing official hierarchies, so as to give the mobility manager the interdisciplinary as well as inter-agency opportunities for action and expertise that are required to initiate cooperative collaboration. Accordingly, the team should work as an executive department in cooperation with the existing department of transport planning. The mobility manager should be involved in all municipal communication platforms related to mobility, in order to gain an ­overview of current developments on the one hand and to be able to introduce measures and involve project partners on the other.

4.2 Legal Establishment of Mobility Reporting Ideally, mobility reporting should be legally embedded so that it is furnished with the necessary financial resources for implementation. This makes the failure to take the necessary steps to implement the plans legally actionable. The public sector plays an important role in shaping mobility, which has already been implicitly enshrined in law in the form of public services. If the instrument is enforceable, it will be possible to apply it nationwide. Health reporting, which is legally enshrined in the federal health service laws of all German states, can serve as a model. It defines the structural requirements for the scope and process of reporting. However, the legal foundation was established more than 20 years ago (SVRKAiG 2000). For example, the new Berlin Mobility Act (BMA) provides a legal basis for embedding mobility reporting. The Mobility Act recognized that the transport system should be designed based on people’s mobility needs (§ 4 para. 1 BMA) – even though the obligation for mobility management did not find its way into the law. Section 1 (3) BMA already explicitly mentions that innovative mobility concepts are to be tested and used, which may result in the implementation of mobility reporting. An explicit legitimation for the application of the new transport planning instrument is § 16 para. 5 BMA, in which the following is stated in legal terms: “Every two years, a progress report on the implementation of priority measures is to be prepared. When quantitative findings from regularly conducted surveys of the

262

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

residents and censuses are available, an evaluation report is to be prepared, which reports on achievement of the quality and action targets adopted in the City Development Plan Mobility and Transport and the implementation of the measures contained therein. […] The update is to be carried out after ten years at the latest.” The statement refers to the Berlin TDP developed at the federal level. Above all, the new legally defined focus on mobility can be promoted through mobility reporting. In the future, an explicit stipulation of the obligation to prepare plans would contribute to the establishment of the new planning instrument and the implementation of the objectives stated in Section 1 (1) BMA.  Although transport planning at the district level is not yet mandatory in Berlin, there is an opportunity to legitimize the instrument and support it with funding from the Senate, as per §§ 4 (1) and 16 (5) BMA. Overall, the Mobility Act refers several times to the evaluation of various factors influencing mobility: • Traffic safety: §§ 17 para. 4, 21 para. 5 and on bicycle traffic 37 para. 5 BMA • Conditions for environmentally-friendly modes of transport: §§ 22 para. 4 & 5 BMA • Local transport: § 28 para. 11 BMA • Rail transport infrastructure: § 31 para. 2 BMA • Bicycle traffic: §§ 39 par. 5 & 6 BMA • Pedestrian traffic: § 52 para. 3 BMA All these evaluation requirements offer the opportunity to use mobility reporting as a transport planning instrument to accomplish the legally defined task.

4.3 Establishing Mobility Reporting in Planning Policy Furthermore, when institutionalizing mobility reporting, care must be taken to ensure that it is comprehensive updated. Only under these circumstances is an evaluation possible, in which a transparent assessment of the implemented measures can take place. Updating turns a single report into permanent reporting, which makes it possible to flexibly align agenda-setting with urgent transport policy issues and to adapt survey methods accordingly. Adjustments of transport policy goals due to new developments can be justified in a comprehensible way in the next planning cycle, in the framework of discussions, thus facilitating the process of democratic consensus-building. The periodic review and revision is necessary in order to sufficiently take planning dynamics into account and to enable a continuous, goal-­ oriented implementation of transport policy objectives. However, a prerequisite for

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

263

efficient planning is full institutionalization of staff positions, sufficient funding, and providing the necessary expertise. In the preparation of plans and implementation of measures, mobility reporting is accompanied by a regular mobility conference, which acts as an advisory body and provides support in the decision-making process. The measures developed in the Mobility Report are to be implemented in practice, so one task of the Mobility Conference is to evaluate the recommendations for action and discuss their implementation with those in positions of responsibility. At the same time, it serves as an inter-agency platform, providing information about the progress in the policy cycle. In addition to officials and politicians, other representatives from their municipalities are invited, who can further develop the process and the discussions through their expertise and act as multipliers in other municipalities.

5 Conclusion Mobility reporting makes it possible to focus fully on the design dimension of mobility in transport planning. The new planning instrument takes into account all the individual and social parameters of mobility. Traffic as a dimension of design is only considered as a consequence of transport-related decisions made on the basis of individual mobility needs and, in consequence, no longer represents the focus of investigation. It breaks with the maxim of adaptive planning regarding current traffic developments in the modal split, but uses targeted traffic conditions. This approach distinguishes the instrument from the ones applied so far, such as TDP, SUMP or CPTP. This enables transport planning to implement the overarching guiding principle of sustainable transport development according to all target criteria – in addition to economic criteria, especially social and ecological criteria – in a strategically target-oriented manner, to design public mobility accordingly. By involving citizens in the planning and the evaluation of the transport system from the user’s perspective, in addition to the cooperation between administration and government, mobility is designed in an interdisciplinary fashion in a multi-actor partnership. In this way, existing problems of legitimacy and cooperation in transport planning, such as protests by the population or difficulties in implementing measures, can be counteracted. The use of mobility-focused survey methods reveals new perspectives on how the transport system is perceived by different groups of people – those with and without mobility impairments. Mobility reporting is all about people-centered transport planning, using the empowerment approach to create more equitable relationships among road users and to enable everyone to share in the transport system. Thus, planners are distancing themselves from their role of

264

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

regulating the transport system for efficiency; instead they are now intermediaries, by engaging citizens as everyday transport experts to shape the system in a co-­ productive way with all other stakeholders. To achieve this paradigm shift requires political will and openness on the part of public authorities, and who are able to adapt their routinized processes. Although the political climate concerning the mobility transition is currently open to change, the administration shows little willingness to experiment with its rules and regulations. Ingrained processes and structures need to be critically reflected upon in order to steer transport development in the direction of state, federal, and local goals. A new transportation planning instrument is less a stress test for dynamic, human-­ caused traffic than for the rigid processes of the administrative executive branch. Initiating a new instrument is a challenge requiring institutional establishment in the form of staff and budgetary resources, and these must be provided. Inter-agency and inter-departmental cooperation mean that new formats have to be tested for the ability to shape mobility in an interdisciplinary way. As far as the legislature is concerned, the Mobility Act in Berlin provides new leverage points to open up the planning process for new instruments. Reporting in the context of a policy cycle is appropriate for a permanent, iterative, goal-oriented, assessable, and integrated transport planning. The public administration can benefit from the deliberative and participatory approach by openly discussing the interests of citizens – for whose benefit the planning is being done – and politicians, who are working for the common good – together and weighing decisions for change. For the first time, mobility reporting fully surveys mobility in the transport system using survey methods that are new in transport planning and expands the design perspective for developing public mobility in line with the guiding principles. Although mobility describes an individual’s subjective space of opportunities, this is in large part shaped by the public authorities, for instance through infrastructure provision and zoning in the city. In light of these possibilities to exercise influence, it is important to involve all stakeholders and to jointly negotiate the design of public mobility.

References Ahrens, G.-A. 2008. Integrierte VEP  – Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Jubiläumsband „100 Jahre DVWG 1908 bis 2008“, Sonderheft der Zeitschrift Internationales Verkehrswesen. 147–153. Berlin: DVV Media Group. Alt, H., Leiter der Steuerungsgruppe zur Verbesserung der gesamtstädtischen Verwaltungssteuerung, Hrsg. 2018. Berlin braucht eine leistungsstarke Verwaltung.

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

265

Abschlussbericht der Steuerungsgruppe zur Verbesserung der gesamtstädtischen Verwaltungssteuerung. https://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/_assets/aktuelles/2018/juni/abschlussbericht_final_web2.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Arndt, W.-H., F. Drews. 2019. Mobilität nachhaltig planen. Erfolge und Hindernisse in deutschen Städten  – Ergebnisse einer Umfrage zu kommunalen Verkehrsentwicklungsplänen. Berlin: DIfU Sonderveröffentlichung. https://difu.de/publikationen/2019/mobilitaet-­ nachhaltig-­planen.html. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Berlin Mobility Act (BMA) – Berliner Mobilitätsgesetz vom 5. Juli 2018, verkündet als Artikel 1 des Gesetzes zur Neuregelung gesetzlicher Vorschriften zur Mobilitätsgewährleistung vom 5. Juli 2018 (GVBl. S. 464). BezVwG – Bezirksverwaltungsgesetz in der Fassung vom 10. November 2011, zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 22 des Gesetzes vom 02.02.2018 (GVBl. S. 160). BMU – Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit, Hrsg. 2017. Merkblatt Erstellung von Klimaschutzteilkonzepten. Hinweis zur Antragstellung. https://www.klimaschutz.de/sites/default/files/KRL_MB_Teilkonzepte_Juli2017.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. BMU – Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit, Hrsg. 2019. Klimaschutzprogramm 2030 der Bundesregierung zur Umsetzung des Klimaschutzplans 2050, https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/975226/1679914/ e01d6bd855f09bf05cf7498e06d0a3ff/2019-­1 0-­0 9-­k lima-­m assnahmen-­d ata. pdf?download=1. Accessed: 08. April 2020. BMVI – Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur, Hrsg. 2019. Verkehr in Zahlen 2019/2020, https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/G/verkehr-­in-­ zahlen-­2019-­pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed: 06. Juli 2020. Böhnke, P. 2010. Ungleiche Verteilung politischer und zivilgesellschaftlicher Partizipation. https://www.bpb.de/apuz/33571/ungleiche-­verteilung-­politischer-­und-­ zivilgesellschaftlicher-­partizipation?p=all. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Brand, H., und K.  Michelsen. 2007. Gesundheitsberichterstattung als Politikberatung. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helmut_Brand/publication/265146585_ Gesundheitsberichterstattung_als_Politikberatung/links/546a6e3d0cf20dedafd38889/ Gesundheitsberichterstattung-­als-­Politikberatung.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Bucher Bürgerverein e. V., Hrsg. 2020. Webseite des Bucher Bürgervereins. https://www. bucher-­buergerverein.de/. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Chang, W.-L., und S.-T. Chen. 2015. The impact of World Café on entrepreneurial strategic planning capability. In Journal of Business Research 68: 1283–1290. Changing Cities e. V., Hrsg. 2020. Webseite des Netzwerks Fahrradfreundliches Pankow. https://www.radpankow.de/. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Claßen, T. 2016. Der Leitfaden Gesunde Stadt – Eine Unterstützungsleistung des LZG zur Mitwirkung an Planungen. Fachtagung „Kommunale Gesundheitsberichterstattung in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Wie geht gute GBE? Daten. Methoden. Praxis.“, Dortmund. https://www.lzg.nrw.de/_php/login/dl.php?u=/_media/pdf/service/Veranst/161103_ fachtagung_gbe/classen_fachtagung_gbe_03-­11-­2016.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Creutzig, F., A. Javaid, Z. Soomauroo, S. Lohrey, N. Milojevic-Dupont, A. Ramakrishnan, M.  Sethi, L.  Liu, L.  Niamir, C.  Bren d’Amour, U.  Weddige, D.  Lenzi, M.  Kowarsch, L. Arndt, L. Baumann, J. Betzien, L. Fonkwa, B. Huber, E. Mendez, A. Misiou, C. Pearce, P. Radman, P. Skaloud & J. M. Zausch (2020): Fair street space allocation: ethical prin-

266

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

ciples and empirical insights, Transport Reviews, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144164 7.2020.1762795. Social Reporting Initiative e.V. (2014). Social Reporting Standard: Guide to results-based reporting. Creative Commons BY-ND 3.0. Available online: https://www.social-­reporting-­ standard.de/fileadmin/redaktion/downloads/SRS_guidelines_2014_EN.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2021). DIfU  – Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik, Hrsg. 2018. Klimaschutz in Kommunen Praxisleitfaden, 3., aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage. https://edoc.difu.de/edoc. php?id=D6P23I8O. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Ewing, R., und R.  Cervero. 2010. Travel and the Built Environment. In Journal of the American Planning Association. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766. Europäischer Rechnungshof, Hrsg. 2020. Sonderbericht Nachhaltige urbane Mobilität in der EU: Ohne das Engagement der Mitgliedstaaten sind keine wesentlichen Verbesserungen möglich. https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR20_06/SR_Sustainable_ Urban_Mobility_DE.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. FES  – Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hrsg. 2019. Hürden auf dem Weg zur Zukunftsstadt. Strategien für eine integrierte Stadt- und Verkehrspolitik. WISO Diskurs, 12/2019. https://library.fes.de/pdf-­files/wiso/15881.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. FGSV – Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen e. V., Hrsg. 2001. Leitfaden für Verkehrsplanungen. Köln: FGSV Verlag. FGSV – Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen e. V., Hrsg. 2013. Hinweise zur Verkehrsentwicklungsplanung. Köln: FGSV-Nr. 162. FIS  – Forschungsinformationssystem, Hrsg. 2018. Verkehrsentwicklungsplanung. https:// www.forschungsinformationssystem.de/servlet/is/414987/. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Flick, U. 2017. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. 8. überarbeitete Auflage. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. Gall, A. 2005. „Gute Straßen bis ins kleinste Dorf!“ Verkehrspolitik in Bayern zwischen Wiederaufbau und Ölkrise. Frankfurt/Main. New York. GIZ – Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit, Hrsg. n.d. Was ist eine MAP? https:// www.partnerschaften2030.de/was-­ist-­eine-­map/. Accessed: 08. April 2020. GPSM – German Partnership for Sustainable Mobility, Hrsg. 2015. Recommendations for Mobility Master Planning. https://www.german-­sustainable-­mobility.de/wp-­content/uploads/2015/08/GPSM_Recommendations-­for-­Mobility-­Master-­Planning_english_final. pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Kargl, G., Hrsg. 2020. Sicher zur Schule. Elterninitiative Berliner Grundschulen. https:// sicherzurschule.berlin/. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Kruse, C., S.  Hausigke, O.  Schwedes. 2020. Qualitative Methoden zur Erfassung individueller Mobilitätsbedarfe in der Verkehrsplanung. In Mobilität, Erreichbarkeit, Raum – (selbst-)kritische Perspektiven aus Wissenschaft und Praxis. Sammelband, Hrsg. A. Appel, J. Scheiner und M. Wilde. Springer Verlag. Lippl, B. 2003. Soziale Gerechtigkeit aus der Sicht der deutschen Bevölkerung. Ergebnisse der empirisch-sozialwissenschaftlichen Gerechtigkeitsforschung. In International Social Justice Project – Arbeitsgruppe für die Bundesrepublik, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Arbeitsbericht Nr. 95. Berlin. Litman, T. 2011, Measuring Transportation. Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility. https:// www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020.

11  Shaping Public Mobility: Mobility Reporting

267

Litman, T. 2014, Evaluating Transportation Equity. Guidance for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation Planning. https://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Nussbaum, M.  C. 2010. Die Grenzen der Gerechtigkeit: Behinderung, Nationalität und Spezieszugehörigkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Nussbaum, M. C. 2012. Gerechtigkeit oder Das gute Leben. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Preisendörfer, P. 2002. Kompensation statt Kumulation? Soziale Ungleichheit aus der Sicht des Theorems des Ausgleichs der Nettovorteile. Zeitschrift für Soziologie Jg. 31 Heft 2: 93–105. Rammert, A. 2019a. Barrieren für eine integrierte Verkehrsplanung in deutschen Kommunen. Verwaltung & Management 25. Jg. Heft 3: 142–150. Rammert, A. 2019b: Akteure des Mobilitätsmanagements: Zentrale Herausforderungen für die Gestaltung von Mobilität. In Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 1/2019, Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, Bonn: 58–69. Rammert, A., S. Daubitz und O. Schwedes. 2019. Entwicklung von Mobilitätsstrategien auf Basis qualitativer Daten. Internationales Verkehrswesen Heft 71, 2019 Nr. 4: 86–90. RKI – Robert Koch Institute (n.d.). Federal Health Reporting. Available online: https://www. rki.de/EN/Content/Health_Monitoring/Health_Reporting/fed_health_reporting_node. html (accessed on 28 April 2021). Rupprecht Consult, Hrsg. 2019. Guidelines for developing and implementing a sustainable urban Mobility Plan, Second edition. https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/sump-­ guidelines-­2019_mediumres.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Schlosberg, D. 2007. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schröder-Bäck, P. 2012. Ethische Kriterien der Gerechtigkeit für den Zusammenhang von Umwelt und Gesundheit. In Umweltgerechtigkeit. Chancengleichheit bei Umwelt und Gesundheit: Konzepte, Datenlage und Handlungsperspektiven. 1. Auflage. Hrsg. G. Bolte, C. Bunge, C. Hornberg, H. Köckler und A. Mielck, 51–60. Bern: Hans Huber. Schultz, J. 2009. Umwelt und Gerechtigkeit in Deutschland. Ein Beitrag zu einer Systematisierung und ethischen Fundierung. Beiträge zur Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit, Band 4. Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag. Schwedes, O. und A.  Rammert. 2020. Was ist Integrierte Verkehrsplanung? Hintergründe und Perspektiven einer am Menschen orientierten Planung. https://www.ivp.tu-­berlin.de/ fileadmin/fg93/Dokumente/Discussion_Paper/DP15_SchwedesRammert.pdf. Accessed: 07. Juli 2020. Schwedes, O., B. Sternkopf und A. Rammert. 2017. Mobilitätsmanagement: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen verkehrspolitischer Gestaltung am Beispiel Mobilitätsmanagement. h t t p s : / / w w w. i v p . t u -­b e r l i n . d e / f i l e a d m i n / f g 9 3 / F o r s c h u n g / P r o j e k t e / Mobilit%C3%A4tsmanagement/Endbericht_MobMan.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Schwedes, O., M.  Hoor. 2019. Integrated Transport Planning: From Supply- to Demand-­ Oriented Planning. Considering the Benefits. In Sustainability. doi:https://doi. org/10.3390/su11215900. Schwedes, O., S.  Daubitz, A.  Rammert, B.  Sternkopf und M.  Hoor. 2018. Kleiner Begriffskanon der Mobilitätsforschung. Discussion paper. https://www.ivp.tu-­berlin.de/ fileadmin/fg93/Dokumente/Discussion_Paper/DP1-­2_Schwedes_et_al.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020.

268

S. Hausigke und C. Kruse

Sen, A. 2012. Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. SenUVK  – Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz, Hrsg. 2011. Stadtentwicklungsplan Verkehr Berlin. https://www.berlin.de/senuvk/verkehr/politik_ planung/step_verkehr/download/Stadtentwicklungsplan_Verkehr_Berlin_gesamt.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. SenUVK  – Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz, Hrsg. 2020. Mobilitätswende. https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/mobilitaetswende/verkehr­888873.php. Accessed: 08. April 2020. SRL – Vereinigung für Stadt-, Regional- und Landesplanung e. V./SRL-FMV-Arbeitskreis „Planungsinstrumente nachhaltiger Mobilität“, Hrsg. 2020. Planungsinstrumente für eine nachhaltige Mobilität. Ein Handlungsleitfaden für die Planungspraxis. https://www. srl.de/dateien/dokumente/de/FMV-­Planungsinstrumente-­fuer-­nachhaltige-­mobilitaet-­ Juni2020.pdf. Accessed: 07. Juli 2020. SVRKAiG – Sachverständigenrat für die Konzertierte Aktion im Gesundheitswesen, Hrsg. 2000. Bedarfsgerechtigkeit und Wirtschaftlichkeit. Gutachten 2000/2001, Kurzfassung. https://www.svr-­gesundheit.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Gutachten/2000-­2001/kurzf­de00.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Thiele, I. 2018. Optimierung von Verkehrsentwicklungsplänen. Ein Vergleich zwischen Theorie und Praxis unter der Betrachtung der FGSV Hinweise zur Verkehrsentwicklungsplanung. Masterarbeit, Ostfalia Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften. https://opus. ostfalia.de/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/984/file/Thiele_2018_Entwicklung_ Verkehrsentwichlungspl%C3%A4nen.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Transport for London, Hrsg. 2005. Improving walkability. Good practice guidance on improving pedestrian conditions as part of development opportunities. https://ww.eltis.org/ sites/default/files/case-­studies/documents/improving-­walkability0_3.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. UBA  – Umweltbundesamt. 2020. Mobilität privater Haushalte. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/private-­haushalte-­konsum/mobilitaet-­privater-­haushalte#-­hoher-­ motorisierungsgrad. Accessed: 06. August 2020. Verein für nachhaltige Verkehrsentwicklung e. V., Hrsg. 2019. Verkehrspolitik in Pankow. https://verkehr-­pankow.de/. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Walker, G. 2012. Environmental Justice: Concepts, evidence and politics, First edition. London: Routledge Chapman & Hall. West, C., E. Marquardt und U. Gerhard. 2016. Co-design und co-production von Wissen für die nachhaltige Stadt: Das Reallabor Urban Office in Heidelberg. GAIA  – Ecological Perspectives on Science and Society 26(1): 58–59. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulrike_Gerhard3/publication/315508206_Co-­design_und_co-­production_von_ Wissen_fur_die_nachhaltige_Stadt_Das_Reallabor_Urban_Office_in_Heidelberg/ links/5e1dbe44458515d2b46ad361/Co-­design-­und-­co-­production-­von-­Wissen-­fuer-­die- ­ nachhaltige-­Stadt-­Das-­Reallabor-­Urban-­Office-­in-­Heidelberg.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020. Wildavsky, A. 1997. But Is It True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wolfram, M. 2009. Planung ohne Steuerung? Zur Qualität und Orientierung kommunaler Verkehrsentwicklungspläne in Deutschland. https://www2.ioer.de/recherche/pdf/2009_ wolfram_raumplanung147.pdf. Accessed: 08. April 2020.

Conclusion: Transport Science as a Social Science

12

Oliver Schwedes

The discourse on sustainability in transport policy is characterized by beacons of hope. Beacons of hope are the secularized form of the religious savior, the messiah sent by God, from whom we expect salvation on Earth. In recent decades, there have been a whole series of such beacons that have been touted as solving all traffic problems in one fell swoop. Car sharing, for example, has been promising for more than 30 years to replace private cars and support sustainable transport development through the collective use of a car component, but to this day it continues to eke out a niche existence and, according to even the most optimistic forecasts, will not make a significant contribution to sustainable transport development in the foreseeable future (ifmo 2016). This was followed in the 1990s by the first wave of electromobility, which disappeared after a few years just as quickly as it had arrived on the scene, before the electric car was rediscovered in 2009 and a second e-mobility hype began (Schwedes 2021). Ten years later, we find ourselves still at the beginning of a development that we already know will not contribute to sustainable transport development if everyone drives a private electric car in the future, instead of dispensing with the private car. Then, in the 2000s, the upcoming, younger generation appeared to many observers as a beacon of hope because they allegedly did not want to obtain a driver’s license or drive a car, which the numbers still do not verify. More recently, the digital revolution in the transport sector has been hailed as a beacon of hope for sustainable transport development, and anyone who formulates objections to autonomous driving, for example, has been castigated as a herO. Schwedes (*) Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 O. Schwedes (ed.), Public Mobility, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39579-7_12

269

270

O. Schwedes

etic. The latest savior, however, is a product of the so-called platform economy and is called ‘Mobility as a Service’. With their private business models, its representatives promise customers any desired mobility service from a single source and, of course, once again sustainable (Docherty et al. 2018). Salvationists are characterized by an ambivalent character; on the one hand, they undoubtedly have a real potential to fulfill the hopes associated with them. In this, the secularized form differs from its sacred predecessors, in which one had to believe. On the other hand, the bearers of hope tempt one to rely on them, without asking about the social preconditions that must be fulfilled for them to develop their real potential. In this respect, they still completely fulfill the function of the religious saviors who, in their day, were assumed to have supernatural powers. By transferring the expectation of sustainable traffic development to the bearers of hope, they fulfil the function of relieving a social burden. Politicians do not have to make unpleasant decisions, citizens do not have to question their own lifestyles, the bearer of hope will take care of it. Instead, the expectation of sustainable transport development has been disappointed again and again in recent decades, without the question being seriously asked as to why this is the case; instead, all those involved prefer to turn to the next bearer of hope, from whom they expect that it will now really fulfill their hopes. Blühdorn et al. (2020) have aptly termed this societal constellation sustainable unsustainability and have forcefully traced out why the ecological transformation of society is not taking place. In doing so, they have deliberately distanced themselves critically from the grand sustainability narratives that mainstream science all too often makes the starting point of its deliberations, in order to gain access to the relevant sources of funding. This distance is urgently needed not least of all because there is a suspicion that their often sociologically implausible narratives of activation and hope may – unintentionally and unconsciously – themselves contribute to the stabilization of precisely what they oppose. For contrary to such narratives of mobilization, modern consumer and digitalization societies are in fact not already on the right track! The turn towards sustainability has not already begun! There is nothing to suggest that the logic of non-­ sustainability is really seriously tarnished. A society of sustainability is nowhere in sight – despite the new climate movement, green electoral successes and various ecological modernization projects. And, in a sense, every assertion to the contrary perpetuates the play that has long been played out and contributes to the justification of business as usual. (ibid., p. 20 f.)

For transport studies, it follows from this that the role of the bearers of hope for sustainable transport development must be critically examined in the context of society and questioned with regard to the necessary preconditions that must be met

12  Conclusion: Transport Science as a Social Science

271

in order for the expectations associated with them to be fulfilled. It then becomes apparent, for example, that car sharing is dependent on restricting the use of private cars. Instead, German car companies are distributing their latest models disguised as carsharing vehicles with advertising appeal and across the board in Germany’s inner cities, i.e., where they are least needed because public transport is well developed. As a result, the attractiveness of car use is increased, without the private car having to give way. After successfully fighting electrification for decades, the German automotive companies are now installing electric drives in combustion vehicles, which have become increasingly larger and heavier and require batteries that must first set two tonnes in motion before the journey can begin. To the extent that the private electric car replicates the old model of the ‘racing touring sedan’ which can cover 500 km at an average speed of 100 km per hour, fully occupied and without having to stop, it does not contribute to sustainable transportation development. Nor is the new generation of young people being born into a car society, rather than a sustainable one. Even the activists of Fridays for Future are dependent on alternative mobility concepts that enable them to live a good life and should car sharing play a role in this, they too will be forced to obtain a driver’s license. Should they use an autonomous vehicle in the future, they will generate more traffic than before under the given societal conditions, because it will become more attractive to travel greater distances by private car, while pursuing other activities (Agora Verkehrswende 2020). After all, young technology-savvy people are already the best customers of those start-ups that offer new mobility services such as e-scooters, e-kick scooters or e-bikes. Their legitimate particular interest is to encourage people to use their vehicles as often as possible and to cover as many kilometers as possible, but this is fundamentally at odds with the public interest of sustainable transport development. At this point at the latest, critical transport studies are confronted with the accusation of defeatism: can you explain how sustainable transport development is to be achieved? The answer to this question presupposes an approach that does rely on individual bearers of hope, but rather starts from social problem situations and orients itself to collectively formulated goals. The aforementioned bearers of hope must be subordinated to these goals and fit into an overall societal strategy (Schwedes and Rammert 2020). Provided that we recognize that the worldwide consumption of resources, the associated environmental destruction and global climate change are a problem, and that we understand sustainable transport development as an essential measure to counter this, this has very concrete consequences for the aforementioned bearers of hope. Car sharing, the collective use of the car, will only contribute to sustainable transport development if the ownership of private cars is largely abandoned at the same time. The electrically powered vehicles

272

O. Schwedes

must be sized and deployed in a way that allows them to be used effectively. This means that their top speed would have to be significantly reduced, then they could also be smaller and lighter from a safety point of view, and lastly a high occupancy rate should be ensured. The new generation of young people needs to be supported in organizing their lives in a sustainable way that no longer relies on a private car. Autonomous vehicles in rural areas could play an important role here, with algorithms that ensure permanent availability independent of private cars and make it possible to establish new mobility routines that support sustainable transport development. This is just one example of a wide range of new mobility services that will be pooled together as part of an integrated overall transport policy strategy to contribute to less traffic in the interests of sustainable transport development. In order to advance to these insights, transport studies must be practiced as a social science and establish itself as a critical science of mobility. A critical science of mobility has the task of analyzing the relations of power and domination that stand in the way of sustainable transport development and putting them up for public discussion (FES 2019). This is based on the idea that the task of science is to critically enlighten society again and again about its own imperfections (Foucault 1992). Only when this succeeds is it possible for science to develop appropriate proposals for social reform that do not peter out in superficial lip service, but rather point beyond the existing social conditions and thus make the great transformation that is being talked about everywhere seem conceivable in the first place. In this sense, we have identified the prerequisites for a humane transport planning in the critical examination of the currently unsustainable situation in the transport sector. This scientific critique of society resulted in the insight into the necessity of a fundamental reform of the transport system: the transport turnaround. Critical mobility research that practices transport science as a social science does not conceive of the transport turnaround as a technological challenge to be achieved with a new set of traffic lights for cyclists and pedestrians, but as a building block of a process of transformation for society as a whole, which affects the way people live together and requires a new social contract (Pistor 2020). In view of the history of the development of public transport, we see helpful starting points here that can be taken up in order to further develop it into a contemporary public mobility. Whereas public transport was legitimized by the state at the time in the context of public services with its contribution to the social integration of society, public mobility requires a basis of legitimacy in civil society that succeeds in linking the social question with the ecological question. In the process, the role of the state is changing, and it is opening up more to society in order to meet the growing demands of active participation. This does not mean, as is repeatedly claimed, that the state is withdrawing; on the contrary, it has long been observed that its regula-

12  Conclusion: Transport Science as a Social Science

273

tory activity is increasing in many areas of society (Bahle 2003; Bonoli and Natali 2012). The development of a public mobility that is more oriented toward people’s demands and needs than in the past also requires new state regulatory powers that allow the public sector to ensure the political, legal, and institutional frameworks of social participation. Accordingly, the re-foundation of the state’s provision of public services by including public mobility is better described as a reorganization of the ‘governance of welfare’ (Bode 2005; Hancké 2014). As a consequence of the reorganization of state welfare regulation, the disciplines of governance such as transport planning are also confronted with new challenges. In order for government and administration to meet the new requirements, transport planning must also open up to society and actively involve the formerly ‘planned’ population in the planning and decision-making processes. As a result, transport policy can be more strongly oriented toward people’s concrete requirements and needs than in the past. This opens up new possibilities of designing a mobility policy oriented toward the common good, which is not directed toward the organization of growing volumes of traffic, but rather pursues the goal of ensuring social participation. The concept of public mobility could be the starting point for giving the emerging major transformation in the transport sector an appropriate social framework within which sustainable transport development can be shaped politically. The starting point should be the realization that the current transformation of transport and mobility is extremely conflictual and that the political goals are correspondingly contested. The various new mobility services do not develop their potential to be sustainable naturally, as it were; rather, they are linked to old and new social actors, each of which pursues very different particular interests. In addition, the existing relations of power and dominance in the field of transport politics are increasingly being called into question and actively combated by citizens. Whether this dynamic situation will result in a sustainable transport development strategy will depend on the outcome of the political struggles. Against this background, it is necessary for governments and science to take a political stand instead of retreating to supposedly neutral transport policy decisions as in the past. Public mobility in a democratic society requires public representation. It must be reflected in the law of the state as well as in state planning and policy. In contrast, the democratic constitutional state – its planning as well as its policies – currently represents primarily private auto-mobility. The persistent weakness of public transport is explained in particular by its weak representation in society. In the car society, public transport is legally a historical relic (a public service), in planning terms it is treated as residual (a minimum level of service) and politically it is perceived as a necessary evil (a case for subsidy). Given this situation, we have inves-

274

O. Schwedes

tigated the question of which social conditions must be met in order to successfully establish a public mobility system that can be used to actively shape the desired change in transport policy. In addition, we have given concrete indications as to which building blocks a public mobility would have to comprise in order to meet the demands of a reformed public transport. While the far-reaching concept of public mobility may still seem utopian today against the backdrop of the modest role of public transport, the new instruments we have identified for shaping a transport system that is fit for human beings point to a path of social development that can be decided in concrete political terms. Accordingly, we see public mobility as a concrete utopia whose success will depend in particular on whether there is a demand in society for critical transport and mobility research.

References Agora Verkehrswende. 2020. Die Automatisierung des Automobils und ihre Folgen. Chancen und Risiken selbstfahrender Fahrzeuge für nachhaltige Mobilität. https://www.agora-­ verkehrswende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2020/Automatisierung_des_Automobils/Agora_ Verkehrswende_Automatisierung_des_Automobils_und_ihre_Folgen.pdf (06.09.2020). Bahle, Thomas. 2003. The Changing Institutionalization of Social Services in England and Wales, France and Germany. Is the Welfare State on the Retreat? Journal of European Social Policy 13 (1): 5–20. Blühdorn, Ingolfur, Felix Butzlaff, Michael Deflorian, Daniel Hausknost, Mirijam Mock. 2020. Nachhaltige Nicht-Nachhaltigkeit. Warum die ökologische Transformation der Gesellschaft nicht stattfindet. Bielefeld: transcript. Bode, Ingo. 2005. Desorganisation mit System. Die Neuorganisation der ‚governance of welfare‘ in Westeuropa. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 15 (2): 219–239. Bonoli, Giuliano und David Natali, Hrsg. 2012. The Politics of the New Welfare State. Oxford: University Press. Docherty, Iain, Greg Marsden, Jillian Anable. 2018. The Governance of Smart Mobility. Transportation Research Part A 115: 114–125. FES – Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. 2019. Hürden auf dem Weg zur Zukunftsstadt. Strategien für eine integrierte Stadt- und Verkehrspolitik. WISO Diskurs 12. https://library.fes.de/pdf-­ files/wiso/15881.pdf (06.09.2020). Foucault, Michel. 1992. Was ist Kritik? Berlin: Merve. Hancké, Bob Hrsg. 2014. Debating Varieties of Capitalism. Oxford: University Press. Ifmo – Institut für Mobilitätsforschung. 2016. CarSharing 2025 – Nische oder Mainstream? https://www.ifmo.de/publikationen.html?t=150 (06.09.2020). Pistor, Katharina. 2020. Der Code des Kapitals. Wie das Recht Reichtum und Ungleichheit schafft. Frankfurt M.: Suhrkamp. Schwedes, Oliver. 2021: The Electric Car. Mobility in Upheaval. Wiesbaden: Springer Nature. Schwedes, Oliver und Alexander Rammert. 2020. Mobilitätsmanagement. Ein neues Handlungsfeld Integrierter Verkehrsplanung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.