Imagining the future of urban mobility

Authors:

Gorka Díaz Merino
MSc Sustainable Design Student (SD2), Aalborg University (Copenhagen)

Marika Zamelek
MSc Sustainable Design Student (SD2), Aalborg University (Copenhagen)

Considering the current climate crisis acknowledged by the scientific community and the fast pace of modern societies and the enabling patterns of consumption and production, a transition to a more sustainable future seems to be a critical topic. Thus, reimagining the future of sectors with a considerable impact on the environment, but also in the way people live calls for an approach to these challenges from a holistic perspective.

In this blog post we use a sustainable transitions approach to analyze KPMG network’s view on the future of mobility and its plan on changing the current regime by incorporating more technology and a shared system of transportation. But does it really help to provide a more sustainable model for citizens to live in? We provide an alternative narrative that places people at the center after analyzing all the problems that this normative, techno-centric narrative incurs in.

A normative narrative on mobility

We can observe many different ways to change the current regime that is connected with transportation. One example is shown on KPMG video - Mobility 2030: Beyond transportation, which presents a futuristic plan with a shared system of electric and autonomous cars and public transport, which relies mostly on the newest technologies. They claim that this way would make citizens’ lives more productive by allowing them to work easily from the cars or public transport, which would be significantly more efficient. These ways of futuristic mobility would become the core values and an even higher part of our lives according to the video. It would extend not only our work and social life, but also leisure. People would be able to maximize their time by using a more efficient system of transportation and become more productive citizens.

KPMG video "Mobility 2030: Beyond transportation"

Although it shows that our life would still highly rely around transportation, just that it would be safer and cleaner, pollute less and significantly enhance our productivity. Scope of the vision also relies on using higher amounts of citizens’ data to provide more bespoke solutions for them. Moreover, it also presents that the pedestrians’ and cyclists’ perspective is quite excluded from this plan. The whole idea is still described in a linear narrative which is supported by the current regime. This system adds new futuristic technologies but still follows the current modern linear narrative of transport.

“Corporate narratives concerning technological change are often constructed around a linear event sequence that presents the organization in a positive light to internal and external observers.” (Dawson, Buchanan, 2005)

The vision pictures that technology would be mostly used in transportation to utilize citizens’ lives, without really including other socio-technical factors like their wellbeing and need to spend more time in nature. At the end of the video we can see that they state that “we believe that future success will only come through an unprecedented degree of collaboration and through design and thinking across government and business” without really taking citizens’ welfare into consideration.

Figure 1. Future Mobility Ecosystem (Picture source : KPMG video - Mobility 2030: Beyond transportation)

MLP is a framework developed by Geels in 2011, which helps to analyze socio-technical transition to sustainability from the interactions of social and technological factors on different levels (landscape, regime, niches). (Moradi, Vagnoni, 2018) In the vision of KPMG video, the authors focus mostly on following the current regime to be more autonomous and efficient.

Regime is a current problem with mobility, that is not efficient and productive enough. It produces lots of pollution, traffic and is not connected well. Also it is important to mention that the passenger transport on land is divided into three regimes: automobile car-based “regime patches”, public transport and non-motorized transport, which include pedestrians and cyclists. (Moradi, Vagnoni, 2018) But authors of the KPMG video focus mostly on the first two regimes, excluding the regime of pedestrians and cyclists.

“Landscape changes may gradually put pressure on the regime, creating “cracks”, and causing the realignment of some of its elements” (Geels, 2004).

Landscape is helping to explain how and why societal developments affect current regimes. What specifically influences them? In this case it could be pressure from corporations and businesses to make citizens work more efficiently, financial expectations, climate change, and increasing development of technology, especially AI.

Figure 2. MLP for Future Mobility vision from KPMG video

Although they are lacking a niche with sustainable alternatives. The video presents a futuristic and shared system of autonomous transportation. It promises efficiency and productivity, allowing citizens to maximize their time during commuting and also providing them entertainment by using their data. It focuses on life in the city center and gives solutions for regimes of private cars or non-sustainable public transport. However they are lacking to provide an actual radical change that would differ from the regime to become more sustainable.


What is the problem?

KPMG’s techno-centric narrative on the future as a solution to a modern challenge is in line with the mainstream discourse exemplified by Abid et al. (2021) stating that “it is entirely possible to achieve carbon neutrality in the transport sector [...] by going forward with a deep level of electrification” by 2050. However, tackling modern complex challenges such as climate change, requires addressing consumption and production patterns in socio-technical systems. This cannot be done with a techno-centric approach, but radically shifting those socio-technical systems (Köhler et al., 2019).

In addition to that, even current mainstream urban planning, design and engineering experts hold concerns around the future role of streets in our lives - people having been pushed to the side, cars being in the center - and reimagine the streets as “livable” (Imagining the Future of Mobility, 2019). This shows that there is a call for the emergence of a more humane take on mobility now that the regime is upon the destabilization of the regime by the modern sustainability challenges facing the regime.


Imagining an alternative mobility model

Following this criticism, we propose a different narrative of mobility that challenges the techno-centric approach of KPMG and envisions a more sustainable model of transportation where people are at the center. Our model rethinks the fast pace of society and the role of mobility in it. It uses spaces, technologies and particular configurations to allow people to make the most out of their travel experience instead of constraining their potential in accordance with the normative narrative. Figure 3 shows the main concepts developed in our alternative narrative compared to KPMG’s.

Figure 3. Conceptual distinctions in the regime-supported and the alternative narratives.

In our model, pedestrians will walk in carless, green spaces designed to meet the social needs of local neighborhoods while reducing considerably the need for vehicles. That is, public green spaces where communal life is nurtured through play, sport, cultural and social exploration or artistic expression. Bike lanes will also be integrated in these spaces for a pedestrian and bike centered street configuration. Green spaces will promote physical activity, psychological well-being, and the general public health of urban residents, while providing critical ecosystem services (Wolch, Byrne and Newell, 2014). Walking and cycling will then become rich and rewarding experiences that encourage connectedness to the environment and other people.

We also envision other modes of transport closer to some of the regime-compliant elements. Although convenient and efficient techno-centric trip planning may cause rebound effects (Berkhout, Muskens and Velthuijsen, 2000) (namely through an increase of the number and distance of trips) and become part of the problem, efficient and intuitive combinations of “environmentally friendly” transport options reduce private vehicle usage (Döge and Abraham, 2020) and need to be accounted for in a future of mobility where population increase will challenge the capability of the transport system. Thus, electrification of transport, along with a network of deeply connected public transport, micro-mobility and sharing models will be part of longer distance traveling in the urban setting. These systems will integrate seamlessly with the pedestrian spaces and provide alternatives for longer distances traveling.

Figure 4. Relevant socio-technical systems and niche considerations for an alternative narrative.

In addition to that, the recognition that different cities have different contexts and needs, the complex urban function that is mobility, and the need to keep the focus on the people, a democratic adaptation to local needs must be a key element of the future of mobility (Tatum et. al., 2020). This will mean a continuous engagement and active participation of diverse stakeholders (including local communities) in urban planning and decision-making on the particular mobility configurations for different urban settings.


Conclusion

KPMG’s video supports the narrative that the future of mobility is hyper-technological and maximizes efficiency, convenience and productivity. A perspective that feeds back into the established socio-technical system and the inertia of modern societies towards extreme technological development / technification as a source of well-being and a solution to the challenges we face.

We argue that this narrative is not part of the radical systemic change needed in order to achieve a sustainable system. On the contrary, it reinforces the regime and gives the impression that the unchallenged ‘status quo’ can still become sustainable without great changes. In order to challenge this idea, we develop an alternative narrative that puts communities and well-being at the center through the local transformation of urban spaces to fit the community needs. We reimagine the definition of transport as a societal function that can look different in different places and that meets the needs of people rather than forcing them to travel in a particular way when they “move from A to B”.

It is clear that the future of mobility needs to deviate from the narrative of the current regime if we are to travel sustainably. The goal of our proposal is to be just one alternative that could (hopefully), jointly with other alternative narratives, open up the space to reimagine the future of mobility that we want.





References


Moradi, A., Vagoni, E., 2018, A multi-level perspective analysis of urban mobility system dynamics: What are the future transition pathways?, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 126, Pp. 231-243

Dawson, P., Buchanan, D., 2005, The way it really happened: Competing narratives in the political process of technological change, Vol.58(7): 845–865

Abid, H, Kany, MS, Mathiesen, BV, Nielsen, S & Maya-Drysdale, DW 2021, Transport electrification scenarios for decarbonization of the European transport sector by 2050. in European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE): Summer Study Proceedings 2021. pp. 751-759.

Berkhout, P.H.G., Muskens, C., Velthuijsen, J.W., 2000. Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy 28 (2000), 425–432.

Döge, N. and Abraham, M., 2020. Towards Seamless Travelling in Europe – Demand and Approaches to Promote Multimodal Traveling Within Europe. In: B. Müller and G. Meyer, ed., Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe 2. Lecture Notes in Mobility. Switzerland: Springer, pp.240 - 253.

Tatum, K., Cekic, T., Landwehr, A., Noennig, J., Knieling, J., Schroeter, B., 2020. Co-creation of Local Mobility Solutions: Lessons from the Mobility Lab in Hamburg-Altona. In: B. Müller and G. Meyer, ed., Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe 2. Lecture Notes in Mobility. Switzerland: Springer, pp.240 - 253.

"Imagining the Future of Mobility", 2019, Institute of Transportation Engineers.ITE Journal, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 20-21.

Köhler, J., Geels, F., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M., Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D. and Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, pp.1-32.

Wolch, J., Byrne, J. and Newell, J., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, pp.234-244.