Public Participation in Transport in Times of Change: Volume 18

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

Unprecedented levels of investment in transit and transit-oriented development in Los Angeles County have not resulted in gains for transit-dependent populations or overall higher ridership for that matter. They have instead saddled them with inordinate cost burdens and displacement pressures. Yet racialised, low-income communities that rely on transit are far from passive victims. Rather, they are participating in advocacy campaigns that penetrate decision-making venues and procedures and co-create institutional practices, policy priorities, and public and private investments that serve their interests and build a Los Angeles that is more widely accessible and affordable. This chapter presents a case study of the Alliance for Community Transit-Los Angeles (ACT-LA), a regional coalition of over 40 community-based organisations at the helm of direct-action policy campaigns and participatory planning initiatives to advance transit justice and equitable transit-oriented communities (TOC). After examining ACT-LA's origins in the LA-based movement for community benefits agreements, the analysis focuses on how ACT-LA has combined political mobilisation for ballot-box measures with participatory policy-making and planning processes to advance just, equitable, sustainable transit systems, and TOC. The concluding discussion considers the implications of the ACT-LA case for reformulating participatory policy-making and planning around transportation and land use to further equity and climate goals.

After a technocratic period predominating in mobility literature and practice, the rhetoric of participation has been incorporated as a vital condition for the sustainable mobility agenda and, more recently, for achieving transport and mobility justice. Considering the social significance of mobility beyond simple movement and participation as a term that can accommodate a wide range of motivations and implications, this chapter explores the complex interplay of participation and mobility in the global south context. To this end, this study adopts the spaces for participation framework to investigate the multiple roles of participation in urban mobility. With a focus on the Brazilian context, this chapter uncovers the nature, dynamics, and reach of invited and claimed spaces for participation in mobility planning. Using Rio de Janeiro as the case study site, the chapter examines the invited spaces for participation enabled by the city's mobility plan and analyses whether marginalised populations engage with and/or create further spaces for participation. This was achieved through document analysis, online photo-elicitation interviews with residents of Favela Santa Marta as well as semi-structured interviews with municipal government professionals and representatives of non-government organisations involved in the development of Rio's mobility plan. The chapter discusses the interconnectedness or lack of, within invited and claimed spaces for participation and the multiplicity of meanings attributed to participation and mobility by different actors. The chapter closes with a reflection on what this means for participatory mobility planning in Brazil but which may apply to similar regions in the global south.

This chapter explores the potential for involving the public in planning healthy urban mobility using a case study of two neighbourhoods in Oxford, UK. We draw specifically on lessons learned from the UK case of a large-scale international study entitled Healthy Urban Mobility (HUM). The HUM project was based on the need to address health inequalities within urban areas by implementing new approaches to planning and health that use novel research methods to encourage active dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders. The two principal objectives of the research were firstly, to understand the impact of everyday (im)mobility on health and wellbeing within different social groups, and secondly, to explore the potential for participatory mobilities planning with local communities to support and develop solutions for healthy urban mobility.

The chapter is organised into six parts. Following the introduction, we highlight the theories behind the need for public participation in urban mobility planning and calls for active dialogue and mutual learning between practitioners and communities for effective action on improving urban health. Then in the third and fourth parts, we provide an overview of the approach to participatory mobilities planning with local communities in the UK as part of the HUM project. In the fifth part, we report the outcomes of the project and critically reflect on the overall approach and lessons learned that may be of use to practitioners and communities. Finally, we conclude with the significance of the study and implications for public participation in planning healthy urban mobility. The research demonstrates the significant potential of participatory methods in transport infrastructure project but also highlights the complexities of public engagement and points to the need for a continual, long-term process to build trust between partners.

Public participation in policy-making can play a fundamental role in improving effectiveness via two mechanisms: strengthening the alignment between public needs and proposed measures, and increasing public consensus (and compliance) about them. It is, therefore, particularly relevant to foster public participation in sustainable mobility planning at the urban scale, as strongly recommended by the European Union, not only to avoid protests and resolve conflicts but also to find the best solutions for the city. Among many different tools and methodologies for implementing public participation, Living Labs have also shown great potential in enhancing the co-creation of strategies and measures for achieving sustainable mobility for both passengers and freight.

Through the analysis of the participatory process carried out by the municipality of Rome to support the definition of the Sustainable Urban Mobility and Logistics Plans, this chapter explores different involvement levels, tools and strategies in this field, with a particular focus on the innovative Logistics Living Lab developed in this city. This also contributes to filling a gap in the literature on how and to what extent citizens could or should participate in city logistics planning. The results of the analysis highlight that, despite these efforts, citizen participation in planning urban logistics is still a challenge that deserves additional effort and resources to be properly enhanced and improved and that a Living Lab offers great potential to meet this challenge. In turn, this case study could help policy-makers to identify solutions for more effective and acceptable measures to addressing city logistics and the externalities it generates.

Transport infrastructure in most countries is owned and maintained either by public authorities, private organisations, or individuals. However, in Sweden, about 50 per cent of the road network is owned and maintained by civic road associations. By using the analytic notion of commoning, this chapter seeks to explore how road maintenance is organised and in what ways civic participation is contributing to infrastructure maintenance. Through interviews with representatives of civic road associations in Vellinge municipality and municipal representatives, we conclude that property owners are being commoned, that is, they are obliged to be a member of the civic road association in the neighbourhood where they own property. This means that property owners are given the opportunity to collectively decide on matters of road infrastructure, including maintenance and investments. Each civic road association is also acting as an organisational collective, demanding or pressuring the municipality and its politicians to reform subsidies and the organisation of ownership of roads and responsibility for their maintenance. As a single property owner, this is difficult, but as an organisational collective, in a civic road association, they have a voice. As a citizen, local municipal election offers opportunities to push for change, but at these institutionalised moments of democracy, road infrastructure issues compete with other issues. Election campaigns rarely target road maintenance, although Vellinge seems to be an exception here. Nevertheless, as citizenship is built around the provision of universal and evenly distributed infrastructure, crumbling infrastructure in different parts of the municipality tends to raise concerns over equal access and opportunities – and also differentiated citizenships.

Given the unprecedented scale of the climate emergency and the need for swift and radical change in how we travel, it is important for local authorities to consider how best to use their ‘authority’ to initiate sustainable change. However, without collective decision-making, longstanding issues around equity, real, and perceived injustices will trump any good intentions and policies. In this chapter, I attempt to make sense of why the initial stages of the Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) a mobility scheme designed to tackle two emergencies – the pandemic and the climate – largely failed in the eyes public, even though it was designed with their benefit in mind.

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

Both guidance to transport planning practitioners and scientific literature advocate the adoption of in-depth and inclusive participation and consultation methods when developing new transport plans and measures. The motivations for this normative stance are however unclear, other than general statements that public participation is inherently a good thing, and that new forms of transport planning must be different from what has gone before. However, these documents cite little or no evidence to demonstrate that more participatory transport planning has produced ‘better’ decisions or outcomes. It is also important to note that the legitimacy conferred on governments from adopting this form of participation and consultation is only one of several forms of legitimacy. The purpose of this chapter is thus to attempt to assess whether more participatory approaches to transport planning do indeed lead to ‘better’ decisions and outcomes. It does this by developing, based on the literature, a number of criteria by which to judge the decisions made and outcomes delivered. It then reviews the experience of consultation and participation in a non-random sample of four pairs of transport plans or measures, and evaluates the experience in each against the criteria developed. It finds little evidence that more in-depth and inclusive participation processes that follow the normative stance found in practitioner guidance and the literature lead to better outcomes, and some evidence that such processes may in some cases compromise legitimacy by slowing and changing measure implementation.

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