Getting Around
Why Public Transport Is No Alternative
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session Jakob Hebsaker, Gregg Culver
Automobility, or the material, spatial, economic and cultural dominance of the automobile and its spaces, has been the hegemonic regime of mobility throughout much of West, and increasingly, the globe, for many decades. Through the process of automobilization, cities and societies throughout the West have been socially and physically restructured to allow for mass automobility. Concomitant with mass motorization, cities have experimented to varying degrees with a number of purported alternatives to the private car, by, for instance, building urban rail networks, especially in major cities, and otherwise through the provision of buses. Drawing on examples from Germany and the United States, we argue in this contribution that despite its appearance, public transport as we know it is not a serious alternative to automobility, but rather a core part of an underlying logic, wherein such “alternatives” to the car are in fact to guarantee that automobility remains functional. Much like automotive insurance, traffic education, and the physical separation of traffic modes, public transport is a further significant component of the maintenance of the hegemonic system of automobility because it serves to mitigate particular antagonisms of automobility that would otherwise threaten the system’s reproduction. We conclude that a true alternative cannot be accomplished through current efforts, which, at best, moderately expand public transport, but would instead require a complete restructuring of the automobile-based socio-spatial order.
How Mobility Conditions Affect Urban Livability at Different Levels of Development around the Globe: Results of a World-wide Survey
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session Anna Kovacs Gyori
People are constantly on the move in cities. They can walk, ride a bicycle, take public transportation, or drive a car – it does not matter, but their movement always has a purpose. Mostly it is about reaching a destination although walking, or cycling can even be considered as free time activities. Thereby mobility has an important role regarding the livability of a place. Good city quality in terms of mobility means the convenient accessibility of the above-mentioned destinations using any transportation mode. However, in traditional livability analysis researchers and experts emphasize the positive effect of active and human-scaled mobility such as walking and cycling in contrast with using a car. The broad range of problems emerging from privileging cars in planning is getting more awareness in more and more cities, such as noise and air pollution, lower traffic safety, constant congestion, disproportionate use of public space, or even health-risks for drivers. So while in many of the first world countries now they invest in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, excluding cars from the inner city, what is the situation in developing countries? Do they have the possibility to walk freely and safely? Is cycling a feasible option for intraurban mobility? Moreover, what are the residents’ perceptions and expectations concerning mobility? Do they use a car because there is no suitable alternative? Our survey addressed these questions among other livability-related topics in Ecuador, Kenya, and Nicaragua and we analyzed their answers compared to the results from Austria, Hungary and the US.
Rethinking Parking in Urban Neighborhoods: Insights from the Literature and Preliminary Results from an Analysis in Frankfurt am Main
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session Franziska Kirschner
Parking takes up a vast amount of public land in the city. On average, one car needs four parking lots. Due to limited space in cities, parking can lead to conflicts between motorized and non-motorized traffic because of residents' diverse mobility requirements. It can affect the quality of open space and the livability in neighborhoods regardless of one’s mobility behavior. Apart from the space needs, its availability and costs are main factors for car ownership and car use. Parking is one of the key parameters for mode choice, yet residential parking is an under-researched topic within transportation and mobility studies. Most research has focused on the car when it is in motion and not when it is parked. The aim of this paper is to present results from a systematic literature review, through which we gathered evidence that urban residential parking needs to be rethought and implemented into local mobility management for a more sustainable development. Furthermore, the study offers insights based on preliminary results of a household survey conducted in the central neighborhood of Bornheim regarding mobility and parking from a residential perspective.
