Transport is the only sector whose greenhouse gas emissions have risen unchecked in recent years. Worldwide, around 23 percent of greenhouse gas emissions stem from the transport sector, largely from fuel combustion by cars, trucks, buses and motorbikes. Rail accounts for just 0.4 percent of transport-related greenhouse gas emissions. It is electrically powered in many places, and is the only mode of transport that has managed to reduce its CO2 emissions since 1990. At the start of this year, the EU proclaimed 2021 the European Year of Rail in a bid to promote the switch from road and air to rail-based transport.

However, rail faces stiff – and above all cheap – competition. Wage dumping and working conditions mean that transporting freight by road is often cheaper and is frequently the preferred option. Korea has made good progress in this area by rolling out "safe rates". Meanwhile, the EU adopted its Mobility Package a year ago in an attempt to improve working conditions in heavy road haulage, but there are still shortcomings in its actual implementation.

This event was a follow-up to the first conference on 24 February 2021 entitled "Putting cross-border rail traffic on the right track".

The panellists were: Cornelia Ernst (member of the left-wing group THE LEFT in the European Parliament), Herwig Schuster (Greenpeace Europe), Cristina Tilling (European Transport Workers' Federation), Wol-San Liem (International Transport Workers' Federation) and Kateřina Konečná (member of THE LEFT group in the European Parliament, Czech Republic).

Cornelia Ernst (THE LEFT) noted in her keynote speech that the first conference on 24 February 2021 had already highlighted how massive neglect of rail infrastructure for decades, both at border points between EU Member States and within Member States, meant that travellers by train were sometimes forced to make incredible detours to reach their destination. So it was no wonder that road haulage was cheaper and the preferred option. However, what was needed was not just an expansion of rail infrastructure within the EU and between the EU and third countries but also, course, a just transition for workers in the road freight transport sector.

Herwig Schuster (Greenpeace Europe) referred to the transport campaign launched by Greenpeace some time ago at EU level – transport being a real headache in many Member States. There needed to be both a reduction in the overall volume of traffic and a shift in the modal split towards rail and inland waterways. He referenced the Greenpeace study A radical transformation of mobility in Europe: Exploring the decarbonisation of the transport sector by 2040, which showed clearly how the EU's transport sector needed to be decarbonised by 2040. On the one hand, there would have to be efficiency improvements in the transport sector and a switch to e-mobility (i.e. electrified rail), in both passenger and freight transport. On the other hand, systemic change was also required, in other words: reducing traffic volumes, switching to environmentally friendly modes of transport, and banning vehicles with internal combustion engines.

Agrofuels were not a viable alternative here, and synthetic fuels were only an option for aviation, and even then only for long-haul flights. By 2040, he said, the distribution of freight traffic would need to be at least 41% truck, 36% rail and 22% inland waterways, compared with 70%, 15% and 14% respectively in 2015. This would also mean a reduction in the number of trucks in the EU, from 6 million at present to between 3 and 4 million. It was too early to draw any real conclusions about the European Year of Rail because the European Commission would not be presenting an action plan until December 2021. Greenpeace hoped that this plan would boost cooperation between European rail companies.

Herwig Schuster went on to stress the importance of investing in and upgrading existing routes as well, as this could be done much faster than building new rail infrastructure (especially in Eastern Europe). Of course, there also needed to be fair and transparent pricing between the various modes of transport, with the introduction of a kerosene tax and a reduction in railway tolls. Dumping in road freight transport also had to be ended: in Austria, for example, many trucks were driving "illegally", with some vehicles not meeting the technical standards and drivers exceeding statutory drive times. Action from national governments was needed to tackle this. With the withdrawal from planned new fossil-fuel projects on the agenda, COP26 was the most important climate conference since Paris in 2015, he said. This would inevitably have an impact on fossil fuels in the transport sector and hopefully lead to faster electrification.

Cristina Tilling (European Transport Workers' Federation) said that synergies between road and rail transport should be exploited and that this required an integrated discussion, also involving trade unions. The situation in road freight transport was so dire because this means of transport was being kept artificially cheap. What we needed, she said, was fewer workers in the sector but much better working conditions. Long-distance haulage was facing problems such as the near impossibility of maintaining a work-life balance, and the pandemic had placed workers under even more pressure. A shortage of drivers was now becoming apparent, the attractiveness of the profession being further undermined by the need to be on the road for weeks on end and the deplorable conditions in lorry parks. A work-life balance was also needed in cross-border rail transport, with shorter absences from home. Another problem affecting both cross-border rail and road transport was that in many cases working hours were not recorded correctly, and so workers were not being paid the wages to which they were entitled. In cross-border rail, there was simply a lack of suitable tools for correctly recording these hours, whereas this was at least technically possible for cross-border road haulage. Furthermore, the minimum requirements for education and training needed to be harmonised for cross-border transport in the EU: while there were clear minimum requirements for road transport, this was not yet the case for rail.

Wol-San Liem (International Transport Workers' Federation, or ITF) explained that in Korea "safe rates" had been introduced for road freight transport two years ago. The ITF was working to have a similar model implemented everywhere in order to improve working conditions, safeguard workers' rights and enhance road safety, because ultimately, the pressure on haulage companies was being passed on to truck drivers, resulting in fatigue, overloading of trucks and more road accidents, among other consequences.

The "safe rates" principles had been established at International Labour Organization (ILO) level in 2019, but unfortunately had not yet come into force. These principles were based on one rate for one journey, taking into account various factors such as travel time. In addition, a balance needed to be found between cross-border drivers and those driving within national borders. Approaches varied considerably around the globe. In the United States, for example, there were clear liability rules for employers. In France, employers had a legally enshrined duty of care. In Korea, the safe rates had already led to fewer speeding violations and less overloading of trucks, meaning that roads were safer. In conclusion, Wol-San Liem pointed out that a change in the industrial structure of our societies was also needed in order to combat social dumping and avoid unnecessary journeys. The costs of a just transition for road freight transport workers should also be taken into account in the discussion on the required transition to green transport, she said.

Kateřina Konečná (THE LEFT) began by noting how difficult it was to enforce good working conditions for those employed in the transport sector. This made the regulatory work of legislators in this area all the more necessary. The Mobility Package, which was designed to improve EU-wide working conditions in heavy road haulage, regulated the following key areas: drive times, rest periods, cabotage, use of smart tachographs, and issues surrounding the posting of workers.

During negotiations on this European legislative package, attempts had been made, especially by Eastern European Member States, to water down some regulations or to exclude them entirely. The requirement for drivers to return home every few weeks was particularly controversial, as according to some Eastern European Member States this would sound the death knell for road freight transport. In other words, the governments concerned had no problem with drivers spending 50 weeks a year on the road without being able to return home. They also did not see it as a problem if drivers had to drive for two straight days just to reach their place of work and were then required to start work immediately, without any break or rest periods. Moreover, even the designated rest periods were often not respected, with drivers drafted in to load up the vehicles.

With road freight traffic making up a significant share of gross domestic product in some Eastern European Member States (16% in Bulgaria, for example), even ambassadors had got involved in the Mobility Package negotiations. Moreover, even the newly elected European Commissioner for Transport had questioned some parts of the Mobility Package and had commissioned a study to show that the requirement for drivers to return home regularly led to environmentally harmful empty runs and was therefore incompatible with the European Green Deal. However, according to Kateřina Konečná, this was not a valid argument as, given the economic pressures they faced, the hauliers themselves would take steps to avoid empty runs.

In conclusion, she said that the Mobility Package had brought about many improvements for road freight transport: even light commercial vehicles now had to be equipped with tamper-proof smart tachographs; rest periods had to be taken outside the cab and paid for by the employer; drivers were entitled to return home every few weeks; all travel documents had to be stored in a database to prevent forgery; and drivers had to go back to the company's operational centre every eight weeks. Of course, she added, the success of the Mobility Package would depend on its actual implementation and on monitoring and control by Member States.

Originally published on: https://www.rosalux.eu/en/article/2047.web-conference-making-rail-transport-attractive-in-the-eu-and-globally-lessons-for.html

Photo: https://urlshortner.org/FSRNc

During the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, 24 countries and a number of car manufacturers adopted a declaration pledging to phase out internal combustion engines by 2040 (or earlier). While this is a commendable initiative by the signatory states and a first step in the right direction, it makes the silence about the necessary expansion of public transport all the more deafening. The coalition agreement of Germany's new federal government, too, has virtually nothing to say on the subject of public transport. This is a serious problem because switching from internal combustion to electric cars will not solve many of the challenges associated with climate change: electric cars do not eliminate land-use problems in our cities, and manufacturing them is both resource- and energy-intensive. On 24 November 2021, in its resolution on critical raw materials, the European Parliament voted in favour of developing new mining areas for critical raw materials such as lithium and cobalt (which are used, among other things, in electric-car batteries). However, as climate protection organisations rightly point out, the focus should be on reducing overall material consumption in the EU rather than on developing new mining areas. Moreover, reducing the EU's material consumption would be an opportunity to free the regions of the Global South from a dependence on extractive industries.

Post-Pandemic Expansion of Public Transport

In order to meet the 1.5 degree target set by the Paris Agreement, public transport will need to be expanded in all parts of the world. Three quarters of all emissions from the transport sector come from road traffic, so it is clear that major CO2 savings must be made here. This can be achieved, on the one hand, by comprehensively expanding public transport, which should be offered at affordable prices or even free of charge, and on the other hand, by transporting more freight by rail.

Public transport around the world has suffered the effects of a collapse in passenger numbers due to the pandemic: its workers have been and continue to be exposed to a higher health risk than those in other sectors, and revenues have slumped due to falling passenger numbers, raising fundamental questions about the financing of public transport. The current boom in electric cars must not lead to public transport being neglected or, worse, called into question. On the contrary, we need to see a reduction in the number of cars in our cities and better, affordable or free public transport. This was highlighted at a joint event at COP26 organised by the International Transport Workers' Federation[1] and the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Brussels Office, at which the governor of the Indonesian capital Jakarta, Anies Baswedan, called for an urgent increase in government investment in public transport worldwide. Reconstruction after the COVID-19 pandemic must put public transport at the top of the agenda, he said, because as well as getting people from A to B, it "connects" people locally. Jakarta had set itself the goal of doubling the number of journeys made by public transport by 2030 and of becoming the global model for expanding urban public transport in the years ahead. A restricted-traffic zone was also planned for the city centre, he added.

Public Transport Back in Public Hands

It is also vital to return public transport to public ownership. This is perfectly illustrated by Glasgow, the host city for this year's COP26 climate conference. Glasgow's bus services were privatised in the 1980s, leading to an absurd situation where there are three different operators of this mode of public transport in a city of 600,000 inhabitants. Since then, prices have risen steadily, and have become simply unaffordable for many people. The level of service has also deteriorated, in terms of both frequency and the coordination of buses with other means of transport. The local initiative Get Glasgow Moving has been fighting for years to bring the city's bus services back into public ownership. Some routes have been scrapped as they were not "financially viable" for the private firms operating them. What's more, the city has high levels of poverty, and much of the population does not own a car and is therefore entirely dependent on public transport. Meanwhile, private bus companies in Scotland receive GBP 314 million in public subsidies each year. This is simply unfair and illustrates why public transport should be publicly owned: it is a service of general interest and must not be subordinated to the profit interests of private enterprise. These demands were also voiced by Jennifer McCarey (Glasgow TUC) during the COP26 event: buses should be returned to public ownership, she said, because the system had become increasingly dysfunctional since privatisation. It was important to think globally and act locally.

The Scottish capital Edinburgh shows what can be achieved: there, bus services are publicly controlled, public transport is vastly superior, and fares are only half what they are in Glasgow.

Free Local Transport for All – Not Just for Climate Conference Delegates

On 10 November 2021, as part of the COP26 counter summit (People's Summit), Get Glasgow Moving together with Friends of the Earth Scotland organised a demonstration that was widely reported in the local press. Among other things, the demonstrators criticised the fact that COP26 delegates were given a free travel pass to use on public transport, and that fancy new electric buses had been purchased to give the impression that Glasgow was investing in the fight against climate change. They called for public transport to be brought back into public ownership and the free travel pass to be made available to local people after the climate conference, as a way of delivering the right to mobility for all.

The debate on the role of the public sector in the provision of public services has been in full swing, particularly since the start of the financial crisis in 2007–08 and since the Labour Party took a prominent and much-publicised stand on the issue in its manifesto "For the Many, Not the Few". In Germany, left-wing party DIE LINKE also advocates public transport under local authority control and is calling for a special "remunicipalisation fund" to support the return to public ownership. The aim is to make the right to climate-friendly mobility for all a reality.

[1] The International Transport Workers' Federation launched its The Future Is Public Transport campaign in 2021: https://thefutureispublictransport.org/#share

Originally published on: COP26 Counter Summit – The Future Is Public Transport (transform-network.net)

Photo: Public transport, Alexanderplatz, Berlin Photo - VisualHunt

This was the third and final event in the Right to Mobility series, jointly organized by Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung New York City, Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung São Paulo, and Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Brussels. You can find more information about the previous events at the following links: Women in the City and Mobility (February 25, 2021): www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7-a_XhKnA; and Right to Mobility against Racism (March 25, 2021): www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUPYqT2OZXc.

Buses and trains worldwide are struggling with a loss of revenue[1] because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Germany, for example, is expected to see a €3.5 billion revenue loss in 2021, and around the globe the number of car users is increasing, as are used car sales figures in some countries (e.g., in the United States)). Climate protection makes it all the more important to avoid scrapping bus or train services or lines, and instead to expand mass transit and reconsider how it is funded. Given the deteriorating social situation and falling real incomes across broad swathes of society, affordable or free local public transportation is key to our services of general interest. After all, the right to mobility can only be achieved through well developed mass transit that is affordable for everyone.

In about 100 cities around the world, it has already been made free of charge to ensure this right to mobility for all. Initiatives in many regions across the globe are fighting for free transportation of this type because mobility is a fundamental right which must not depend on individuals' ability to pay. In the United States, city councilors (such as Michelle Wu in Boston[2]) are calling for free public transit as part of the urgently needed Green New Deal. In Brazil, movements such as Movimento Passe Livre (Free Fare Movement) and Tarifa Zero (Zero Fare, or Fare Free Public Transportation (FFPT)) have been pushing for years for mass transit to be made free of charge. In Germany too, initiatives (such as in Nuremberg) have been successful in pressing for a 365-Euro-Ticket (an annual season ticket with which a mass transit user can make unlimited journeys within a particular area for the equivalent of €1 per day) and a 'social ticket' for people on benefits, and there have been long-running campaigns for the introduction of free local public transportation.

We invited academics, politicians, and activists to engage on these issues. Over 100 participants from Brazil, the United States, Canada, Germany, and across Europe joined the conference.

Andreas Günther, Executive Director of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung's New York Office, emphasized in his words of welcome local public transportation's role in combating climate change. While some reductions in emissions had been achieved in other parts of the economy in recent years, greenhouse gas emissions were still rising unchecked in the transportation sector. In light of the billions of euros spent each year on maintaining and expanding infrastructure for cars in the European Union, it was clear that the authorities must pump more public funding into local mass transit. The cooperation between the German trade union ver.di and Fridays for Future in the most recent wage dispute showed that climate protection must go hand in hand with a good public transportation system.

Judith Dellheim, Research Fellow at the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, stressed that what was important was the right to socially and environmentally sustainable mobility and therefore the social right to public transportation, including local mass transit, and that this was a basic prerequisite for a life of self-determination led in solidarity with each other and in the context of a healthy environment. She pointed out that the fight for zero fare public transportation was just one element of a politics which, starting with the here and now, aimed to sustainably mitigate and solve social and ecological problems with a view to democratically making society progressively more socially oriented, fairer, more solidarity based, and so more environmentally friendly.

ree local public transportation must therefore be wanted, and the will of social actors must become a real movement that made plans, mobilized human, material, and financial resources, and organized and realized social and economic processes. She said that a (crucial) part of this had to do with issues of financing operating costs and investments. So the first step was to encourage people to get organized and stand up for what they thought could be done. In this context, for example, to start with, those allowed to use mass transit free of charge could gradually be expanded. The first people to benefit from this should always be those in most urgent need of support, such as children, young people, older people, and those hit by poverty and social exclusion.

In Poland, for instance, around 30 municipalities had decided to abolish fares for local public transportation, with a view, first and foremost, to combating poverty. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in some countries more groups had been allowed to use public transit free of charge (at least temporarily), such as healthcare workers in the UK and in Turkey, while the Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rih was due to scrap fares for all residents on May 1, 2021. In the Indian state of Punjab, women had been able to travel for free since April 1, 2021. In Brussels, anyone under 25 would get to use public transportation for no charge from September 2021. Partly because of the COVID-19 pandemic, blueprints for the expansion of local mass transit were now also being increasingly discussed in cities like Los Angeles and Toronto.

It must be clear, though, that the introduction of a zero fare policy raised performance/capacity issues for local public transportation, which must of course be expanded beforehand and during the rollout of this policy (which must be accompanied by also promoting walking and cycling). However, attention must of course also be paid to the interface with existing ownership structures: the expansions of the infrastructure that were needed before the introduction of zero fare mass transit in Luxembourg were very expensive as the companies involved had previously been privatized. How financing issues could sometimes reach fever pitch was illustrated by the example of Templin in Brandenburg in Germany. This town did have a free fare policy at one time, but the Land Brandenburg (State of Brandenburg) imposed new administrative structures, which meant that there was a change in the transportation company and its public funding body. The State of Brandenburg then also stopped the Templin town authorities levying a local transportation tax that was necessary to bring in the zero fare policy[3].

Municipalities in France were in a better position in this respect: having more rights, when a zero fare was introduced, they had to make up for lost revenue from ticket sales by covering only 10-20% of total operating costs. They were allowed to levy taxes payable by local companies and which covered approximately 50% of the costs of local public transportation. In the German city of Bremen, there were hopes that a zero fare policy was about to be introduced for local public transportation, with the Social Democrats (SPD) in that city state saying that all residents should be able to use this for free from 2023. This would involve changing the basis for funding, which the authorities there could do. This showed that if the zero fare policy were to become a reality for both local public transportation and for public transportation in general nationwide, changes to the law as well as investments would be needed from the state, and these could only come about by forging appropriate political alliances.

Titus Schüller, a DIE LINKE (The Left) representative on the Nuremberg City Council (Germany), reported on his party's successful campaign for the introduction of an affordable social ticket and the 365-Euro-Ticket in the city of Nuremberg. In the long term, the party was also pushing for the introduction of free local public transportation. The backdrop for these political struggles were the huge fare hikes in Nuremberg since 2010, leading to tensions between, on the one hand, groups championing assistance for the unemployed and, on the other, the city authorities. In 2010, 12,000 signatures backing the introduction of a social ticket had been collected. There had been a further fare increase of 15% in 2013, also sparking widespread and creative protests among city residents. In 2015, yet another fare rise had been planned, but this had been stopped thanks to further widespread protests, as across the piece, the city's population had been of the opinion that fares were too high, and so all political parties had had to accept DIE LINKE's demand for fares to be reduced.

The blueprint had been the city of Vienna with its 365-Euro-Ticket and well developed local public transportation system. While Bavaria's conservative state government had eventually pledged to introduce a 365-Euro-Ticket from 2030, this was far too late, prompting a broad-based alliance (DIE LINKE, trade union organizations, church communities, cinemas, small sport clubs, etc.) to gather signatures to force a referendum. In the end, 21,000 signatures were collected, so exceeding the 12,000 that were required. Ultimately, a referendum had not been needed because DIE LINKE had managed to achieve the introduction of the social ticket (costing only half of the full price and valid around the clock). For the population this was a considerable relief, especially in the midst of a pandemic. Furthermore, the alliance would campaign for the promised introduction of the 365-Euro-Ticket from 2023. In conclusion, the emphasis on this issue from 2010 on and the development of a broad, local alliance had led to some initial key successes.

Marijke Vermander from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, as part of the LiFT research project, is investigating the various zero fare public transportation models in Brazil and how they are being implemented. She explained that in Brazil it was clear, despite gaps in the data, that there were already a number of municipalities implementing the Tarifa Zero (zero fare, or fare free public transportation (FFPT)). Movimento Passe Livre (MPL, or Free Fare Movement) had been established in 2013 and could be said to be the main movement pushing for FFPT in Brazil. However, the first protests for FFPT in Brazil had started back in the late 19th century. These had initially involved workers, with students joining in as from the year 2000. Movimento Passe Livre had initially called for a zero fare for students, before expanding its demands and seeking this for everyone. For many people in Brazil, public transportation was the only way they could, for example, get to work. Mass transit there was often limited and overcrowded.

The funding situation was difficult because there were virtually no public subsidies for local public transportation, meaning that it had to be financed almost entirely from ticket sales. By way of comparison, in Flanders (Belgium) only 15% of local public transportation costs were met by ticket sales. Financing almost entirely through ticket sales resulted in a tricky situation whereby costs per passenger rose when the total number of passengers decreased; or, for example, when a demographic group was given the right to use the system for free.

Marijke cited two examples: the municipality of Monte Carmelo, which had been offering FFPT since 1994, paying for it through tax revenues from local industry. In that case, the city authorities had found that collecting fares was more expensive than providing public transportation for free. The second example, the city of Paulínia, was a particularly striking one in the national context in that it had over 100,000 residents. There had been FFPT only between 1995 and 1997, but even today fares were much lower than in other parts of the country. Overall, Marijke said that unfortunately the gaps in the data meant that it was often unclear when and why municipalities had introduced or abolished FFPT. However, the good news was that the list of cities with FFPT was getting longer every year in Brazil. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the drop in passenger numbers alone, it was clear that the public transportation system would either collapse or have to be put on a new financial footing.

Phineas Baxandall from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (United States) referred to the latest reports[4] he had published on free transit. He described the change in attitudes on this issue, from free fares being considered some kind of utopia just a few years ago to something that nowadays the Acting Mayor of Boston was advocating for. Other mayoral candidates had also discovered the zero fare model for the public transit system and were calling for free transportation to be rolled out. This was easily relatable because there was no charge for using a public elevator or calling the fire service.

His research data showed that the abolition of fares led to increased ridership, as well as reducing travel times thanks to passengers no longer having to buy a ticket from the driver at the front of a bus and instead being able to board elsewhere. There was also a social aspect here in that public transportation in the United States was mainly used by people of color and those on low incomes. This showed that free transit could help in the fight against poverty and exclusion and against climate change. A movement for free transit had emerged in the United States, and fares had already been scrapped in some cities (Kansas City and the Massachusetts cities of Lawrence and Worcester). In the city of Lawrence (which had become famous for the major strike by textile workers in 1912 with its slogan "give us bread and give us roses"), part of the budget had been used to make several bus lines free of charge, increasing ridership by over 40%. Indeed, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, all buses had been free across the state of Massachusetts, and in New England's second largest city, Worcester, this had turned out to be such a positive experience that free public transit was still in place today. To take the whole discussion about free fares forward, the view of public transportation must be changed away from being like a "candy bar" you got by putting a few coins into a vending machine. Instead, we must reach a point where people see mass transit for what it is: a public good. Then popular support for it would also increase.

A look at the numbers demonstrated this: just the cost of organizing the collection of cash from ticket sales, printing the tickets, etc. was a huge waste of resources, as for every four dollars raised through ticket sales, three dollars were spent simply on collecting the money for fares – and all this did nothing to make public transit faster or safer. However, financing free public transportation would only be possible if the US federal government also contributed funding.

During the subsequent discussion, a representative of the Brazilian Movimento Passe Livre movement said that the struggle for free public transportation was a struggle for social rights for the people. This movement had continued to gain popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, because it was unacceptable that profits were made off the back of the population. The pandemic had made the situation even more difficult, because the mass transit fleet had been reduced by 50%.

A representative of the initiative Einfach Einsteigen (Just Hop On) in Bremen (Germany) referred to the discussion on the financing of free public transportation there and the need to better integrate into the network parts of the city that had traditionally been poorly connected.

A representative from Toronto (Canada) pointed out that on the one hand free public transportation was a utopia, but on the other hand this raised very specific funding questions. For example, it was clear that in many cases the municipality could not bear the costs alone. Paris was a good example of this: employers were forced to co-finance a "social right."

Among other contributions to the discussion, it was indicated that the costs of private motorized traffic (road sealing, poor air quality, loss of space, accidents) far exceeded those of free public transit. Free local public transportation could also help to decrease the number of cars in our cities, which would be a very desirable outcome.

Last but not least, it was suggested that in Germany a 365-Euro-Ticket could be introduced which would be valid not just for a single municipality but across the whole country.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/climate/buses-trains-ridership-climate-change.html: Sengupta, S. / Abdul, G. / Andreoni M. / Penney, V. (2021). Riders are abandoning buses and trains. The New York Times, March 25.

[2] See, for example, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/02/free-public-transportation-is-a-reality-in-100-citiesheres-why.html.

[3] "As a municipality, we weren't allowed to levy a surcharge for local public transportation. Ten Deutschmarks a year per citizen would have been enough for us," complained former mayor Ulrich Schoenteich in 2018 (cited in: Brie, M. / Dellheim, J. (eds) (2020). Nulltarif (Zero Fares). Hamburg, VSA, page 57).

[4] https://massbudget.org/about-us/staff/phineas-baxandall/

Originally published on: https://www.rosalux.eu/en/article/1940.steps-toward-free-local-public-transportation.html

Photo: https://urlshortner.org/soayw

As the U.S. confronts the twin crises of climate and the coronavirus, each disproportionately harming Black and brown Americans, it’s time for a reckoning over our failed federal transportation policies. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the necessary time frame outlined by scientists, we must make public transit a viable option for the majority of Americans. This will provide the greatest benefits to Black and brown riders, who have shouldered the burden of caring for our society throughout the pandemic, while continuing to take transit in large numbers.

Transit agencies’ budgets across the country have been decimated by COVID-19, and providing them with an immediate infusion of cash is necessary to prevent imminent collapse. But beyond this short term relief, policymakers should seize the moment to enact a Green New Deal for transportation that reduces auto emissions and remedies longstanding racial inequities. 

This change ought to be made permanent. The best way to dramatically increase transit access in America is to simply run a lot more train and bus service. To do that at the scale required, we must dramatically increase the operating budgets for transit. An additional $20 billion in operating assistance a year would allow agencies across the country to immediately scale up service by 40%, boosting current routes and adding new ones to underserved urban and suburban destinations.

This change is imperative for climate action. In survey after survey, transit riders indicate that service frequency matters more to them than any other aspect of the transit experience.

But only 10% of Americans currently live within walking distance of transit that comes every 15 minutes or less. Transit service in the U.S. just doesn’t run frequently enough to be relevant for most Americans. Therefore the vast majority drive instead, which takes a huge chunk out of household budgets and damages the climate. Household automobile debt is at the highest level ever recorded in the U.S., as poor families struggle to buy their way out of unreliable transportation. In 2018, vehicle miles travelled reached an all-time high, helping to make transportation the top source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. 

Reinstating operating support budgets is also a matter of racial justice. People of color, and in particular Black Americans, are the ones most harmed by our nation’s abysmal transit service. In 2017, the think-tank Demos found that Black workers were four times more likely to commute on transit than white workers, while Black households are the least likely to have access to a vehicle. Bus riders are more likely to be Black or Latino, and outside of New York City, the majority of transit trips in the U.S. are taken on the bus. Demos also found that Black workers are overrepresented among public transit commuters who have one-way commutes of 60 minutes or longer. 

During COVID, these are the riders that have kept our cities running. People of color account for a disproportionate share of the 2.8 million essential workers commuting on transit. Among people who regularly commute on transit, Black Americans are much more likely to be classified as essential workers than any other race, according to the Census. Boosting transit frequency will honor their contributions, and ensure they can lead full lives without the financial burdens of vehicle ownership. 

In 1997, the Federal Transit Administration stopped providing all but very small transit agencies with operating assistance, the final blow in an assault on federal transit spending initiated by the Reagan administration. The federal government continues to pay for capital expenses – the physical stuff of transit systems, like train stations, tracks, and buses – but transit agencies must raise revenue locally to pay to run those trains and buses. This mismatch has resulted in an inequitable patchwork of transit systems that may look impressive on paper, but are too infrequent for most people to depend on. 

For example, Dallas’ transit agency, DART, boasts of 90 miles of light rail, making it the most expansive system by mileage in the country. But DART trains arrive only every 20 to 30 minutes. Los Angeles has recently gone on a construction blitz resulting in 83 miles of subway track, yet trains only run every 20 minutes on them. Since 1995, the number of buses on the road nationally has gone up substantially, but the aggregate number of hours those buses run has gone down. Elected officials tend to conceive of transportation as an infrastructure problem – cue the running jokes about infrastructure week – when really it’s a service level problem.

Without federal operating assistance, transit agencies subsist on a mixture of local and state taxes as well as fare revenue. This has made transit funding a house of cards that is particularly vulnerable to economic downturns and austerity. When these revenue sources take a hit, agencies often have no choice but to reduce service. This creates a vicious cycle where, as service is reduced, fewer people can continue to rely on transit, and fare revenue plummets. Agencies then struggle to raise additional revenue at the ballot box because of an unwillingness by taxpayers to fund transit service that “nobody rides.” This is what happened to transit in countless cities in the aftermath of the 2008 recession, and many agencies still haven’t recovered. 

In popular culture, shifting people onto transit is often framed as a sacrifice, with car ownership perceived as freedom. But, in recent polling conducted by YouGov, Americans across party lines report feeling trapped in their cars, and would like to see greater investment in transit alternatives. Blanketing U.S. cities and suburbs with “walk up and go” transit service could feel luxurious – not virtuous. 

One need only look to our neighbor to the north to see what effect providing networks of frequent, reliable transit would have on travel choices. Canada has similar land use patterns but far more transit service, even outside of dense cities. For example, in the Toronto suburbs, buses run every 10 minutes or less late into the night. But in the New York City suburbs, most buses run only every half an hour and stop at midnight. The Canadian investment in service frequency has paid dividends – while ridership has slumped in the U.S., it has consistently risen in Canadian cities. 

To address the racial inequities laid bare by the pandemic, and to mount a meaningful response to climate change, we need a Green New Deal for transportation that revives massive transit operating support. Allowing agencies to run the type of service that benefits current riders and attracts new riders will jumpstart a virtuous cycle by generating more revenue and creating a bigger constituency that will clamor for better service. The current crisis demands this change, and the future of a habitable planet depends on it. 

Hayley Richardson is a Senior Communications Associate at TransitCenter.

Originally published on: A Green New Deal for Public Transport - RLS-NYC (rosalux.nyc)

Photo: DART light rail train in Dallas, Texas | Marko Forsten | Flickr

Our cities are suffering from the effects of a steady increase in road traffic. Traffic jams, huge swathes of land being taken up by roads and parking spaces for cars, and polluted air are all clear signs that we must strengthen the network of environmentally-friendly mobility solutions (walking, cycling and public transport) in our urban centres and use cars less. During the coronavirus crisis lockdown, when there was a big drop in car use, we had the chance to see just how attractive our towns and cities could be. And that is not all: studies suggest that the number of COVID-19 deaths in parts of the world with high levels of air pollution is greater than in other regions.[1] However, there are things that can be done about air pollution: the Spanish NGO Ecologistas en Acción (Ecologists in Action) has, for example, shown that the restricted-traffic zone in the centre of Madrid has indeed led to a sharp decrease in air pollution.[2]

We must reclaim public spaces, making them people-friendly, rather than car-friendly as they are at the moment, and thereby ensure that mobility is convenient, affordable, safe and reliable for everyone. Local public transport is 'public space' in the literal sense and belongs to all of us.[3] The increasing pressure on the housing market and rising rents mean that public spaces are growing in importance again as meeting places and 'second living rooms'. Another important consideration is that lively streets are beneficial for social cohesion in neighbourhoods.[4] Furthermore, people who are less well off tend to live in more polluted streets and are therefore exposed to greater health risks. This is simply unfair and must be combated, specifically by making rents affordable and reducing the number of cars in our cities.

On 22 July 2020, ahead of the upcoming collective bargaining round, the German trade union ver.di, which represents public transport workers, published a press release with Fridays for Future,[5] calling for decent working conditions and pay for workers. This alliance reflects the fact that climate protection and appealing, well-developed public transport go together. The German public-transport sector needs at least 100,000 new workers by 2030 – but if the stressful working conditions do not improve, the staff will not be found.[6] But it is not just about improving public transport: there is also a need for measures to make cycling and walking safer in cities: in Berlin alone, 15 pedestrians and 14 cyclists were killed in road accidents between January and early September 2020.[7]

And, of course, we also have to cut back on car use for the sake of the climate: 27% of all emissions in the European Union come from the transport sector, with three quarters of those being produced by road traffic (aviation, shipping and rail transport account for the rest). To meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement, a significant change in direction is needed in this regard, involving more freight traffic by rail (across Europe), fewer cars in our cities and well-developed, affordable public transport for both urban and rural areas.

Some European cities are moving in the right direction: in the Berlin state government, DIE LINKE. (The Left) pushed for a Mobility Act that supports pedestrians, cyclists and public transport in cities by setting specific expansion goals and gives them priority over cars. This makes Berlin the first state (Land) in Germany to have such legislation.[8] Kristian Ronneburg, a DIE LINKE representative in the Berlin House of Representatives, said at the RLS Brussels Office web conference Changing lanes – first moves towards car-free cities [9] that a lot of money has already been invested in further developing cycling: in 2018 alone, the state government had pumped €13 million into this.[10] In addition, the traffic-planning staff in the 12 Berlin districts had been increased, the Berlin bus fleet was being switched to electric, public-transport ticket prices had been reduced and since August 2019 there had been a free 'student ticket' for both schoolchildren and higher-education students in Berlin. The rules for electric scooters (e-scooters) will be updated next year to properly take on board the needs of cyclists and pedestrians.

But of course these advances in Berlin would not have been possible without the pressure from city residents that preceded and accompanied them. As Denis Petri from the association Changing Cities explained at the conference, 'bicycle referendums' (referendums on making a city more cycle-friendly), for example, are an important form of direct democracy and are now on the political agenda in 35 German cities. A demand that Changing Cities has adopted from Barcelona (Spain) are traffic-restriction zones in the city centre, or 'superblocks' (involving various apartment blocks being grouped together and no through traffic for cars), as they are called in Barcelona, where they were introduced under the leftist coalition led by mayor Ada Colau. These blocks give rise to play streets and green and recreational spaces in the middle of the city.[11]

The Spanish capital, Madrid, also took steps in the right direction when the city government, headed by the left-wing alliance Ahora Madrid and mayor Manuela Carmena, introduced the Madrid Central traffic-restriction zone in November 2018. Since then, pollution in Madrid has fallen dramatically, as Nuria Blázquez from Ecologistas en Acción explained at the conference. For instance, at Plaza del Carmen, the only measuring station in the traffic-restriction zone, nitrogen-dioxide pollution was found to be 32% lower in 2019 than before the introduction of the measures to limit traffic.[12] Furthermore, the debate about city centres with few or no cars has spread from Madrid across the whole of Spain, with many Spanish cities now looking into how they could set up their own low-emissions zones. When the new right-wing mayor of Madrid proposed to scrap the Madrid Central traffic-restriction zone, thousands of the city's residents took to the streets on 29 June 2019,[13] showing that citizens have understood the need to make cities more people-friendly. This was a point reinforced at the conference by Francisco Javier Cañadas, a representative of the Spanish left-wing party Unidas Podemos in the Madrid Assembly. In the past, he said, urban planning had always been much too car-focused, but the experiences with Madrid Central and the low-emissions zone in Barcelona had shown people how pleasant car-free cities could truly be. They had also seen that, with just a few measures, we can make our cities more 'liveable'. Last but not least, the local economy, e.g. the retail sector, also benefits from initiatives like Madrid Central. Therefore, Unidas Podemos is demanding that Madrid Central be kept because, he pointed out, public health should not be sacrificed to bureaucratic whims. Absurdly, he went on, the conservatives in Madrid have slashed public-transport services during the coronavirus crisis, although COVID-19 measures meant that public transport should actually have run more frequently. Unidas Podemos advocates a massive expansion of local public transport and ticket prices based on social criteria, in order to provide financial relief for certain demographics.

This shows that local alliances of urban society and left-wing, progressive governments can do a lot to promote public health, solidarity-based mobility for everyone, and liveable cities.

References

[1] Damian Carrington (2020, 20 April). Air pollution may be 'key contributor' to Covid-19 deaths – study, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/20/air-pollution-may-be-key-contributor-to-covid-19-deaths-study

[2] Ecologistas en Acción (2020). Balance del efecto de Madrid Central sobre la calidad del aire de Madrid en 2019, Madrid: Ecologistas en Acción, https://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/balance-2019-madrid-central.pdf (in Spanish)

[3] Judith Dellheim (2020). Kapitaloligarchien und die Auto-Gesellschaft (pp. 25-40), in: Michael Brie & Judith Dellheim (eds.), Nulltarif, Luxus des Öffentlichen im Verkehr, Hamburg: VSA

[4] See also VCD (2016). Rückeroberung der Straße, VCD position, https://www.vcd.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Redaktion/Publikationsdatenbank/Fussverkehr/2016_Position_Rueckeroberung_der_Stasse.pdf (in German)

[5] https://www.verdi.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/++co++e7c87ad6-cc13-11ea-960d-525400940f89 (in German)

[6] In this connection, see also an article on working conditions that mean workers do not even have time to go to the toilet: Ines Wallrodt (2020, 18 August). Man kann nicht mal zur Toilette, Neues Deutschland, https://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/1140614.tarifrunde-im-nahverkehr-man-kann-nicht-mal-zur-toilette.html (in German)

[7] Source: Changing Cities Berlin, https://changing-cities.org/ (in German)

[8] In this connection, see also Hendrik Sander (2020). Die Berliner Verkehrswende, June 2020, Berlin: Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Analysen/Analysen60_Bln_Verkehrswende.pdf (in German)

[9] This web conference took place on 4 September 2020. A video of this conference in English, German and Spanish will be posted soon on the RLS Brussels Office's website, https://www.rosalux.eu/en/

[10] Peter Neumann (2019, 15 January). Rad fahren in Berlin, Berliner Zeitung, https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/mensch-metropole/rad-fahren-in-berlin-so-viel-geld-investiert-berlin-in-den-radverkehr-li.62636 (in German)

[11] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/11/18273896/barcelona-spain-politics-superblocks

[12] https://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/114930/balance-del-funcionamiento-de-madrid-central/ (in Spanish)

[13] BBC News (2019, 29 June). 'Madrid Central' protest: Thousands oppose suspension of anti-pollution plan, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48814970

Originally published on: Who do our cities belong to? (Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Büro Brüssel) (rosalux.eu)

Photo: Protester holding a flag with a car on its roof and the message "Petrol party over" Photo - VisualHunt

At first glance, street canyons, footpaths, underground stations, and playgrounds appear to be open spaces that are universally accessible to all of a city’s inhabitants. A lift can seemingly be used just as equally as a four-lane inner-city ring road. But is this actually the case? As different as cities all over the world are, they are greatly similar in one aspect: the male* view, patriarchal relations, and a mode of production and life that is geared towards the male* and white* “ordinary citizen” all take physical form within the urban landscape. This affords privileges to the few, while negating the needs of many others.

In viewing the capitalist city of today—along with its traffic and the (im)mobility of its inhabitants—from a feminist, intersectional perspective, the dominance of the car becomes readily apparent. It is the “car-centric culture”, the focus upon and privileged status of the car, that leads to the systematic neglect of the mobility requirements of women*, as well as of marginalized demographic groups, in favour of an outdated model of gender norms and city planning. In other words: the patriarchal, racist, and classist power relations that permeate our cities and transport systems culminate in the dominance of the car. An intersectional and sustainable concept of city and transport planning must take this context into consideration.

The Car as an Expression of Hegemonic Masculinity

It is undisputed that our current transport system is built around the car as the most important mode of transport. But car-centric culture extends far beyond the alignment of infrastructure with car use or the dominance of the automotive industry. It is also a question of gender. The car is emotionally loaded like almost no other consumer product, and is successfully marketed as a symbol not only of freedom and independence, but of strength, domination, power, and technology––all concepts that construct and perpetuate notions of masculinity.

The image of car drivers as male and passengers as female still lingers today, along with the idea that tinkering with or polishing your car is the sole preserve of proud dads and “real men” who understand technology. Or, as Dan Albert (2019) puts it: “Driver’s ed made teenagers into citizens; auto repair made boys into men.” Reckless male behaviour while behind the wheel is also reflected in accident statistics, with men much more likely to be the cause of serious and fatal accidents. The same is also true of “trivial offences” such as intoxication, speeding, or parking violations (German Federal Statistical Office 2018). Margarete Stokowski (2019) brilliantly analyses the connection between the heated discussion around speed limits in Germany and wounded masculinity: “Whenever there are discussion about restrictions to activities that are supposedly more “male”––whether eating meat, setting off fireworks, or driving fast––squadrons of politicians and journalists are always at hand to declare that entirely unreasonable motives driven by a hatred of pleasure are castrating a God-given human liberty.” It’s almost funny––if it wasn’t so sad.

In the context of this car-centric culture, engines should be noisy and dirty or, if they are electric versions, need to pack real horsepower. Cars are now increasingly built to resemble miniature tanks that dominate the streets. Cyclists and pedestrians are forced to squeeze past them apologetically, since roads have been built for cars––and cars only. The SUV trend, which has proven so lucrative for auto manufacturers, has pushed this dominance to the brink. In a sense, it is reminiscent of the tendency among men towards “manspreading” (where a man adopts a sitting position in public spaces with legs spread wide apart) and “mansplaining” (a patronizing explanation from a man who assumes he knows more about a subject than a female counterpart). In all of these contexts, space is encroached upon, without consideration of those who lose out, whether that be other human beings, less able or disadvantaged people, or the environment. Here, the right of the stronger party is expressed as unconditional, and is propagated and by and large accepted by society. Or, as seen in an advertisement for the Ford Mustang: “Just don’t think about your kids.” This catastrophic trend, which has pushed up accident statistics as well as the profits of car manufacturers, can also be compared to a kind of arms race. If there are more and more two-tonne tanks on the road in the form of SUVs, driving a normal-sized car no longer seems safe. The need for a bigger car for maximum security increases the danger for everyone else on the road in turn.

That growing numbers of women* are now driving large and environmentally polluting cars, and that it is often men from marginalized groups who strive to acquire an enormous car as proof of status, points to the contradictions of, but does not refute the argument in its essence: the display of hegemonic masculinity is, after all, not just about acting out “natural”, biologically determined characteristics, but is related to societal expectations of behaviour and notions of social dominance and symbolic power. These devalue not only femininity but also other forms of masculinity and simultaneously create the pressure to both conform and compete. 

How Road Traffic is Steered by "Real Men"

It is not only the emotionally loaded fetish for cars, however, that makes the transport sector an industry dominated by men. The sector appears to be a bastion of masculinity, where on the executive floors white men can still enjoy their own company (in addition to travelling first class on airplanes and trains), and where other perspectives are barely visible or taken into consideration. The dominance of this privileged white-masculine perspective is exemplified by the German Federal Ministry of Transport, where, since its inception, not a single female minister has held office, and where the other senior position holders are almost entirely male and white (German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure 2020).  

The gender gap in the manufacturing industry is striking, and is clearly underscored in the relevant statistics: in the automotive industry, women* make up approximately 14 percent of employees, a number that falls far below the average of other industrial sectors. The proportion of women* then continues to drop as levels of pay or qualification rise, and attempts to find any in the boardroom will in the majority of cases prove fruitless.

The proportion of women* varies according to individual branches of the industry: the proportion of women* working at car manufacturers in the year 2008 lay at only twelve percent, this number lay between 12.2 and 18 percent in the auto supplier industry (IG Metall 2010). Separate wage brackets for women and low-income earners, which designated different (i.e. worse) pay levels for these groups, existed until the 1980s. (German Trade Union Confederation 2013).

Despite otherwise being a relatively rare presence nowadays, this masculine exclusivity continues to predominate in other areas of the sector too. Traffic and city planning in municipalities and administrative bodies therefore falls largely under the purview of men, and in political parties, few women* initiate conversations on the topic. So-called transport experts are almost always men*, while at specialist conferences the few women present simply nod along in corroboration. For these reasons, it’s no wonder that the subject of transport still seems to be the sole preserve of men.

What Is the Effect of Hegemonic Masculinity in the Transport Sector?

Having more women* and stakeholders* from marginalized groups in positions of power does not guarantee a form of traffic and city planning that takes gender into account. But when these perspectives are not represented on advisory boards and expert panels, transport planning will inevitably be dominated by the transport and mobility needs of gainfully employed men*. Modern town planning remains rooted in Fordist bias: it designs and administers cities oriented towards male sole earners and their patterns of consumption and production. This reproduces and strengthens images of gender and ways of living that have in fact been undergoing radical upheaval for some time.

The road layouts of many cities more or less originate from the long commuting distances between home and work that are travelled once a day by an implicitly male working population––preferably in a private car, on a city motorway. These routes were tailored to the idealized 1950s model of family and mobility conceived of the city according to the principle of being “car-friendly” and “boundless mobility for free citizens”. Roads lead to work, to the presumed centre of the productive economy, and ruthlessly cut through areas in which people reside and live.

The work that is undertaken by women* within the framework of this model and that is constructed as “female”, and the routes taken by female workers, are less linear and even less predictable. Care provision work such as looking after children and the elderly, shopping, doing the school run may comprise multiple routes within a single day that are often highly complex and should, in an ideal scenario, be located within the direct vicinity of residence (school, kindergarten, doctor, supermarket etc.). Care workers are therefore much more reliant on safe, short-distance footpaths and bike paths and a well-developed public transport system. They also have particular needs, including when it comes to using transport: parents are often on the go with buggies, which require wider footpaths, flattened kerbs, and easier methods of getting on and off public transport––and the same applies for people with disabilities (Murray 2018). In a male-only perspective of town and transport planning, where priority is placed on faster routes for cars rather than decent interconnections and an accessible range of transport options within residents’ immediate living environments, these needs are overlooked. 

A Feminist Rethinking of Transport

How, then, can transport and mobility be transformed from a feminist and intersectional perspective? While toxic, hegemonic masculinity is based on the idea of being stronger, and thus on exclusivity, the focus of a feminist and intersectional approach must be on inclusivity and in taking into account people who are socially disadvantaged or less physically strong. Mobility means the opportunity to participate in society. From a democratic point of view, this opportunity should be available to everyone and represent a part of public services that benefits society. The following are four principles to guide a radical shift in the transport sector:

Mobility for everyone: 

Up until now, cities and towns have been built for, and built around, the strongest transport stakeholders (usually those with the highest income); they should now be accessible for all people. Freedom of movement for the few should no longer encroach upon the mobility of the many. Regardless of the gender, income, or skin colour of its passengers, transport options should be safe, affordable, accessible to those with disabilities, and environmentally friendly. These aspirations clearly point to collectivized modes of transport as well as improved infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. These modes of transport use up significantly less space and resources, and produce less noise and air pollution. In addition, they generally enable cheaper mobility for a great number of people. The same cannot be said of the standard mode of transport: a private car with a combustion engine.

Safety for everyone: 

The transport system has until now catered towards the young and the fit, as well as the wealthy. But the elderly, children, and those with physical disabilities have different requirements when it comes to safer mobility options. Not for nothing is cycling infrastructure a key indicator of a just, safer, and more inclusive system of mobility. The more optimized and safer cycling infrastructure is, the more women*, children, and seniors will use bikes (El País 2019).  In addition, women and people of colour live in particular fear of assault or harassment in public spaces: dark underground garages, poorly lit train station entrances, and underpasses can all be frightening places for some. Public transport itself, too, can often be a stressful experience––so to avoid making a privately-owned car the only safe place of refuge (one that people need to be able to afford), ideas for making public spaces safer for everyone are necessary.

Focus on relationship-building: 

The transport routes required for care provision work need much more attention. A “mobility of care” is a concept of mobility that is complex, multi-functional, and divided into smaller-scale aspects. Mobility in this context refers to the cultivation of relationships, since contact with and between people is essential. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that many women* and older people want cities to create more public spaces for leisure (BBC 2019). Creating simple and inviting areas with benches or parks is a way to ease and enable care work and relationship building––and also rescues these spaces from being closed off for private use. If spaces in towns and cities are gobbled up for commercial use and car parking spaces, it renders these kinds of social encounters within the community impossible.

More patience: 

A more inclusive approach to transport requires an injection of patience. This means more tolerance for people who cannot, cannot yet, or can no longer walk quickly, who cannot see or hear well, or who are simply unfamiliar with an area. This may lead to longer times for crossing at traffic lights, wider cycle paths, accessible labelling, lifts, or many other solutions. But it also means limiting the alleged right of those who are faster and stronger in an active and targeted manner.

A feminist and intersectional approach to the mobility transition needs to advance the cause of those who are most affected by car-centric culture and/or who are already working on alternatives––for instance parents, cycling activists, environmental defenders, children, and the elderly. Greater collaborative organization at the grassroots level is required, with potential new alliances a welcome prospect. However, radical changes are also needed within established institutions in parties, NGOs, and ministries, as well as in local politics. Until women and marginalized communities are given a seat at the table and space to speak, gender-sensitive and intersectional transport planning will not be possible.

The (masculine) dominance of the car in our cities must be curtailed. The effect of this curtailment would be different for each city, since planning and the implementation of change must be undertaken together with the people who live there. These guiding principles could result in benefits for all inhabitants, since an alternative approach to transport planning means enhanced access, fairness, tranquillity, space, fresh air, safety, and meeting places available for everyone.

Bibliography

Albert, Dan, Are We There Yet? The American Automobile Past, Present, and Driverless, New York: Norton, 2019.

BBC, “What would a city designed by women be like?”, 2019, www.bbc.com/news/av/world-50269778/what-would-a-city-designed-by-women-be-like.

El País, “Las mujeres necesitan más los carriles bici que los hombres para pedalear”, 2019, https://elpais.com/sociedad/2019/11/18/actualidad/1574106321_138788.html.

German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (2020): Organigramm, www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/Z/organigramm-anhang.html.

German Trade Union Confederation, “Gleiches Geld für gleichwertige Arbeit”, 2013,  https://frauen.dgb.de/++co++54aeb962-31c0-11e3-8336-00188b4dc422.

IG Metall, “Frauenbeschäftigung in der Automobilbranche. Entwicklung und aktuelle Situation”, 2010,  www.igmetall.de/download/0157928_langfassung_automobilindustrie_10032010_483a2e0bcf73d4f229df5aaa968426f65a73ea53.pdf.

Murray, Christine, “What would cities look like if they were designed by mothers?”, The Guardian, 27 August 2018, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/27/architects-diversity-cities-designed-mothers.

Statistisches Bundesamt, “Verkehrsunfälle. Unfälle von Frauen und Männern im Straßenverkehr”, 2018, www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Verkehrsunfaelle/Publikationen/Downloads-Verkehrsunfaelle/unfaelle-frauen-maenner-5462407177004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.        

Stokowski, Margarete, “Fragile Rollenbilder. Männlichkeit am Limit”, Spiegel Online, 22 January 2019,  www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/tempolimit-und-gender-maennlichkeit-am-limit-a-1249258.html.

Originally published on: Reclaiming Space - Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (rosalux.de)

Photo: Girl riding a Velib bike in Paris Photo - VisualHunt

Introduction

During the coronavirus crisis, cities around the world seized the opportunity to close roads to cars and to expand pedestrian zones and cycle lanes. But what future will these initiatives have when normality is restored? Is there even the risk of a rebound in private car use if travelling on public transport continues to be discouraged? At the same time, the crisis is also a chance for public transport to reinvent itself and play a new role in the post-COVID-19 world.

Transport during the coronavirus crisis – an accelerated revolution?

During the coronavirus crisis, traffic – especially private vehicles and public transport – decreased in almost every city and region, in some cases dramatically. By contrast, walking and cycling enjoyed a surge in their relative importance. Many found the combination of these two impacts a relief, given the reduction in traffic-related stress, deaths and injuries and the widespread fall in levels of pollutants. However, this effect is deceptive because cars' relative weight in traffic has increased almost everywhere.

At the same time, there is growing evidence that air pollutants exacerbate coronavirus-related conditions, whether this is due to damage to the respiratory tract, or the ability of the virus to adhere to pollutant particles. This provides a compelling argument for not returning to the pre-crisis status quo after the lockdown restrictions have been relaxed. Many cities and local authorities have seized the opportunity to make long-overdue changes to public transport in the slipstream of COVID-19 social-distancing rules.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio even convened an advisory council specifically to look at how transport would be organised after the crisis. One of its members, Sarah Kaufman from New York University, concludes from this exceptional experience that "[t]his is absolutely a time to rethink how we allocate public space".

• Proctor, Jonathan (2020). COVID-19 reduces economic activity, which reduces pollution, which saves lives. G‑FEED, 8 March 2020. Available at: http://www.g-feed.com/2020/03/covid-19-reduces-economic-activity.html

• Katz, Cheryl (2020). The Pandemic Has Taken Cars Off Urban Streets. Will It Last?, in: Yale Environment 360, 1 June 2020. Available at: https://e360.yale.edu/features/the-pandemic-has-taken-cars-off-urban-streets.-will-it-last

Tactical urbanism – small changes with big effects

Berlin

Berlin's pop-up cycle lanes, which enable socially-distanced cycling and proved an instant hit with bike users (and photographers!), are just one conspicuous example of 'tactical urbanism'. In fact, a wide range of plans to expand infrastructure for cyclists were already in the pipeline before the COVID-19 pandemic but had had trouble getting off the ground. The coronavirus crisis gave new impetus to these moves, as socially-distanced cycling became very much the order of the day and the Berlin authorities suddenly joined in the sprint, turning Felix Weisbrich, who heads the Roads and Parks Department in the city's Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg district, into a media star.

The new infrastructure was rolled out at remarkable speed, as – with the help of drone-based aerial surveys and close coordination between the relevant authorities – the district managed to set up cycle lanes within just 48 hours. 'Tactical urbanism' is the term used to describe quick, low-cost interventions in the urban space which, involving paint rather than structural measures, can be implemented without getting caught up in red tape and at the same time have a considerable transformative capacity. Berliners couldn't believe their eyes: something like this normally takes years or decades to happen as the various Berlin authorities wrangle over who is responsible for what.

An increase in cycling was an immediate consequence – and one that came as no surprise to transport expert Weert Canzler: "All transport infrastructure creates demand. So any infrastructure you put in place for cyclists is going to increase cycling." Meanwhile, the conservative opposition fears that this will be a permanent structural legacy of the coronavirus crisis – not without reason, as those responsible for the cycle lanes are already talking about making them a lasting feature and putting them on a firmer footing. Generally speaking, initially unpopular measures, such as traffic calming, the elimination of parking spaces and the creation of low-emissions zones, once the case for them has been won and they have been put in place, have not been reversed subsequently, even when there has been a change in the political wind.

• Wikipedia, Pop-Up Bike Lane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-Up_Bike_Lane

• Wikipedia, Tactical urbanism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_urbanism

• Canzler, Weert (2020). Plötzlich geht alles. WZB Blog Corona und die Folgen, 20 April 2020. Available at: https://wzb.eu/en/node/67266 (in German)

London

Before COVID-19, nine million people in London used public transport every day. The two-metre social-distancing rules in force in the UK have seen passenger capacity plummet to 15%, according to Transport for London (TfL) Commissioner Andy Byford. The British capital's famed double-decker buses have been limited to 20 passengers, whereas they can normally hold 87.

In May 2020, London Mayor Sadiq Khan unveiled the 'London Streetspace' programme, which aims to accommodate a possible 10-fold increase in cycling and a fivefold rise in walking. "[B]y quickly and cheaply widening pavements, creating temporary cycle lanes and closing roads to through traffic we will enable millions more people to change the way they get around our city," he said. The Mayor's office is consulting with the 32 boroughs to rapidly implement Streetspace funding for signs, stickers, plastic barriers and traffic diversions. The city authorities are in fact working on making these temporary measures a permanent feature.

Some boroughs, including Camden, are also crowd-sourcing suggestions, tips and comments using online maps. Local residents are making extensive use of Camden Safe Travel, which enables the authorities to respond quickly to suggestions from the public and get feedback on measures they have already taken.

• Warren, Hayley (2020). How London Is Preparing For Life After Lockdown. Bloomberg, 10 June 2020. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-london-cycling-streetspace/

• Camden Safe Travel: https://camdensafetravel.commonplace.is/

Milan

Milan is a relatively small, densely populated northern Italy city, with 1.4 million inhabitants, 55% of whom use public transport to get to work. The average commute is less than 4 km, making a switch from cars to other means of transport conceivable for many residents. Lombardy – Italy's most populous region with over 10 million inhabitants – was one of the parts of Europe hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The region, and especially its capital Milan, also has some of Europe's highest levels of air pollution.

Against this backdrop, Milan has announced that 35 km of streets will be transformed over the summer of 2020, with a rapid, unbureaucratic expansion of cycling and walking space as COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. The Strade Aperte (Open Streets) plan includes temporary cycle lanes and speed limits of 30 km/h. According to Milan Deputy Mayor Marco Granelli, the aim is also "to support bars, artisans and restaurants. When [the crisis] is over, the cities that still have this kind of economy will have an advantage, and Milan wants to be in that category."

The Milan city authorities have brought in a high-profile adviser in the shape of Janette Sadik-Khan, a former transportation commissioner for New York City, who is working with them on their post-COVID-19 transport recovery programme. She says: "The Milan plan is so important because it lays out a good playbook for how you can reset your cities now. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take a fresh look at your streets and make sure that they are set to achieve the outcomes that we want to achieve: not just moving cars as fast as possible from point A to point B, but making it possible for everyone to get around safely."

• Laker, Laura (2020). Milan announces ambitious scheme to reduce car use after lockdown, in: The Guardian, 21 April 2020. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/milan-seeks-to-prevent-post-crisis-return-of-traffic-pollution

• Schlamp, Hans-Jürgen (2020). Ferrari-Land wird Fahrrad-Land, in: Der Spiegel, 1 June 2020. Available at: https://www.spiegel.de/auto/italien-kaufpraemie-fuer-radler-ferrari-land-wird-fahrrad-land-a-bda46119-4f1d-49d7-95e3-6e159928513b (in German)

Barcelona

Since 2015, when a left-wing coalition took power in Barcelona, the city authorities have been pursuing an ambitious plan to reduce car use in the Catalan metropolis, which was plagued by air and noise pollution, by building new tram lines and rolling out new cycle lanes. While no such moves can be expected from the right-wingers and right-wing populists who have been running local government in Madrid since mid-2019, leftist Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau is set to pursue in her second term the path she took in her first, in an effort to bring about a new type of mobility.

Since the start of 2020, there has been a 95-km² 'Barcelona Ring Roads Low Emission Zone', inside which vehicles without an eco-label are banned. This follows the example of the similar Madrid Central zone introduced in the Spanish capital in 2019, where levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) have fallen by 48% in one year.

Ada Colau, who was re-elected in May 2019, says that the transport changes "are here to stay". Barcelona has already declared a climate emergency, and according to Colau, the coronavirus crisis has only "increased the urgency of making this transition happen much faster". She has said: "Pollution is something that had become normal which we don't want to return to. We don't want streets full of cars." As in other cities, more spaces were created for pedestrians and cyclists during the lockdown, including an additional 21 km of cycle paths and 12 km of pavements or footpaths.

• Solé Altimira, Oriol (2020). Barcelona quitará espacio a los coches tras el desconfinamiento para ganar 21 kilómetros para bicis y 12 para peatones, in: El Diario, 25 April 2020. Available at: https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/sociedad/Barcelona-quitara-desconfinamiento-quilometros-peatones_0_1020498126.html (in Spanish)

• Interview with Ada Colau: La oposición de acoso y derribo que está haciendo la derecha es de vergüenza ajena, in: El Diario, 1 June 2020. Available at: https://www.eldiario.es/confinados/Ada-Colau-Barcelona-entrevista_0_1033447439.html (in Spanish)

• Burgen, Stephen (2020). Barcelona to open southern Europe's biggest low-emissions zone, in: The Guardian, 31 December 2019. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/31/barcelona-to-open-southern-europes-biggest-low-emissions-zone

The post-coronavirus transport conundrum

With pandemic restrictions now being lifted across Europe and the volume of traffic increasing once again, a less idyllic scenario is emerging, one in which private vehicle use gathers fresh momentum, fuelled by fears of COVID-19 infection. Traffic researcher Jens Dangschat, who calls this the 'my car is my castle' phenomenon, even fears that conflicts in the arena of public spaces will flare up or intensify as a result.

Cities are adopting a wide range of strategies to try and prevent a return to the pre-crisis status quo. In an open letter to the European Commission, a number of leading figures in city authorities from across Europe write that "urban mobility is being disrupted dramatically by the current crisis". They see a risk of a rebound in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Their idea to avoid squandering the "huge public momentum to maintain the improved air quality" is to modernise public transport: "Public transport has a central role here: it requires the renewal of bus fleets with zero emission vehicles, and quickly."

• Dangschat, Jens S. (2020). Corona-Pandemie und Mobilität. Soziologische Perspektiven auf die Corona-Krise – Digitales Kolloquium des Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), 27 May 2020. Available at: https://coronasoziologie.blog.wzb.eu/wp-content/uploads/23/2020/05/WZB_Dangschat_25052020.pdf (in German)

• Verkehrswendebüro (2020). Die Verkehrswende als Chance! Ein Reset-Programm für die Kommunen. Available at: https://www.verkehrswendebuero.de/die-verkehrswende-als-chance-ein-reset-programm-fuer-die-kommunen/ (in German)

• Open letter to the European Commission on 22 May 2020. Available at: http://www.eurocities.eu/eurocities/news/Open-letter-to-the-European-institutions-urban-mobility-in-the-EU-Recovery-Package-WSPO-BQ9BRY

Local public transport caught in a pincer movement

Public transport as we know it could be the big loser from the coronavirus crisis. The crisis has seen a slump in passenger numbers on local public transport, leading to a major loss of revenue. The slate is not simply wiped clean with the lifting of the lockdown, as social-distancing rules and the requirement to wear a mask in public spaces may be with us for a while yet. The fear of infection in enclosed spaces such as buses and trains is also keeping passenger numbers low.

Even before the crisis, public transport was having a hard time of it, often being underfunded, needing modernisation and operating at the limits of its capacity. When profitability is the overriding concern, this ideology leaves its mark, meaning that there is hardly any room for innovation. A host of new vehicles on the one hand (e.g. e-scooters, electric bikes, 'microbuses' (small, usually electric buses available via an app)) and new behaviours and transport models on the other (ride sharing, ride pooling, car sharing, etc.) are putting pressure on traditional public transport. Often, there are insufficient resources to get involved in these innovative mobility solutions.

To make matters worse, capital-driven platforms are muscling their way onto the scene, appealing in particular to a young, urban audience with their user-friendly, app-driven mobility solutions.

German Association of Towns and Municipalities transport officer Timm Fuchs frames the challenge posed by the platform economy in the following terms: "As in other areas, the digitalisation of public transport is revolving around the platform economy, big data and artificial intelligence. For municipal authorities and customers, the availability of data from public and private mobility providers offers new opportunities for better transport planning and customised route planning. It is also all about the digital networking of modes of transport through cross-provider platforms, integrated information and booking systems, real-time information and optimised operational processes, and even driverless cars." There are a host of changes in the pipeline, for which public transport providers often do not have the money, staff or regulatory scope required.

In just one example of how public transport is facing increasing competition from mobility platforms on its own turf, Uber recently announced plans to set up a type of neighbourhood taxi service in Falkensee near Berlin. Uber says the following about its new service Der Falkenseer: "For a fixed price of €5 you can now book trips from any address in Falkensee to Falkensee, Finkenkrug and Seegefeld railway stations and back again via the Uber app." Public transport companies have been calling for such feeder services for years now so that they can offer a proper alternative to private cars outside the major cities. However, the price of this service is set to rise to €8 from September 2020.

The result for public transport is that it is caught in a pincer movement between economic and epidemiological factors – a double strangulation effect that Klaus Dörre has also identified in the automotive industry. It is being squeezed by COVID-19-related revenue losses, social-distancing rules and passengers' fears on the one hand, and loss of sales and underfunding on the other. Take Berlin, for example: workers' representatives on the Supervisory Board of the city's public transport operator Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) had to block the procurement of low-carbon electric buses at a meeting of this body, in order to avoid over-indebtedness and the possible worsening of funding shortfalls for workers' wages and salaries.

In Barcelona too, the coronavirus crisis means that the public transport company is facing the threat of bankruptcy, with €200 million in lost revenue, prompting the city's mayor to call for national legislation to finance public transport. However, the coronavirus crisis also provides an opportunity to break out of the current funding system. This should finally put paid to the financial viability and profitability rationale, while discussions about free local transport or low-cost all-year-round tickets like the '365-euro tickets' introduced in Austria and Germany could gain momentum.

Against this backdrop, Michael Brie and Judith Dellheim write in their recently published plea for free local public transport: "Free local public transport could be a sensible way forward to ensure that things do not continue in the same way (...) with today's car-focused society."

• Uber (2020). Uber startet Pilotprojekt in Falkensee bei Berlin. 11 June 2020. Available at: https://www.uber.com/de/blog/falkensee (in German)

• Fuchs, Timm [German Association of Towns and Municipalities transport officer] (2020). Wie die Digitalisierung den ÖPNV stärken kann. Standpunkt, in: Tagesspiegel Background, 11 June 2020

• Was stimmt nicht mit unserer Demokratie? Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/gesellschaft-in-der-krise-was-stimmt-nicht-mit-unserer.2162.de.html?dram:article_id=455987 (in German)

• Hasselmann, Jörn (2020). Verdi blockiert Kauf von neuen E-Bussen, in: Der Tagesspiegel, 5 February 2020. Available at: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/gewerkschaft-streitet-mit-bvg-verdi-blockiert-kauf-von-neuen-e-bussen/25509412.html (in German)

• Guerrero, David (2020). El coronavirus hace perder 200 millones al transporte público, in: La Vanguardia, 27 May 2020. Available at: https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/barcelona/20200527/481422947663/transporte-publico-perdidas-impacto-coronavirus-tmb-barcelona.html (in Spanish)

• Brie, Michael and Dellheim, Judith (eds) (2020). Nulltarif. Luxus des Öffentlichen im Verkehr: Widersprüchlicher Fortschritt einer Idee im ÖPNV. VSA-Verlag, Hamburg

About the author

Timo Daum has been publishing on digital capitalism, data-based mobility solutions and the digital economy for many years. He is currently a visiting fellow in the Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation research group at the Berlin Social Science Center (WZB).

Originally published on: Reset: The post-coronavirus transport conundrum (Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Büro Brüssel) (rosalux.eu)

Photo: 17.Walk.BaltimoreMD.7April2019 | Woman Jump Rope Exercising … | Flickr

The Office of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung in Brussels invited almost 80 activists from nearly 20 European countries to a conference titled «Urban Movement! Connecting Resistance and Alternatives». The conference ran from 18 to 20 October 2019 and gave the participants an opportunity to discuss the transport revolution from a grassroots perspective, exchange views and ideas and learn from one another. The various groups and initiatives came to Brussels equipped with a huge variety of campaigns and strategies, some of them geared towards improving infrastructure and boosting the rights of pedestrians and cyclists, others designed to fight for better, cheaper or even free public transport, or to turn urban spaces, especially streets and car parks, into usable shared spaces for use by everyone. Some of these activists voice their views in petitions or demonstrations, others occupy public spaces to engage in direct action and/or stage public artistic events.

Different though the activists' strategies or priority issues are, they all share the same goal: making our towns and cities more liveable by offering fair, environmentally friendly transport for all and reducing, if not totally eliminating, car traffic. What clearly emerges from all these initiatives is that aspiring to better towns and cities entails a social and ecological struggle that invokes deeper conflicts about (global) justice in our societies, raising questions like: Who actually owns towns and cities? And who takes up how much space? Who moves by what means and for what reasons? How can mobility and transport be organised in the face of the climate crisis and increasing urbanisation? Who will pay for the externalised costs of our transport system? What kind of power do (automotive) groups have, and who actually determines how we (can) move about and where we meet each other?

Cars will evaporate – Panel debate, keynote speeches & workshops

The conference kicked off on Friday evening with a brief presentation of the participating groups at the poster exhibition and then continued with a panel debate on different approaches to change in our towns and cities. Allan Alaküla presented the concept implemented in Tallinn, which for several years now has offered totally free public transport. Isabell Eberlein spoke about the success of the referendum on bicycles in Berlin and the limits grassroots activists face when dealing with municipal authorities. Geert van Waeg talked about the perspective of pedestrians, the least visible group of road users, to which we all belong at some time. Laura Schwarz spoke about direct traffic-related actions like the Munich-based initiative Ende Geländewagen (Stop SUVs) or the Frankfurt-based pro-climate, anti-car action group Sand im Getriebe (Grit in the Gears). The debate was chaired by Janna Aljets, the initiator and organiser of RLS Brussels' conference.

On Saturday morning, the keynote speech delivered by Anna Nygard from the Swedish collective Planka Nu (Fare Evasion Now) set the tone for the day's proceedings. Via Skype, she reported on two decades of experience as an activist advocating free transport, establishing a clear link between local transport policy and issues of social justice and the capitalist economic system. She clearly underlined the fact that mobility and traffic are part of a larger power system that needs to be broken and changed.

On Sunday morning, two further keynote speeches sparked further discussions. First, Pilar Vega from the Spanish collective Ecologistas en Acción presented a strong feminist perspective on transport planning and urban design, showing how strongly the male gaze and patriarchal structures shape the way we move around our towns and cities. Next, Ana Gulías Torreiro from Pontevedra in Spain reported on the achievements of a car-free city. She, too, was able to demonstrate from her own practical experience just how repressive a car-oriented town or city is, particularly for socially marginalised groups, and how lowering the number of cars can strengthen alle the people.

Last but not least, the conference was shaped by the participants themselves. Various groups and campaigns that had teamed up in advance led joint workshops on a very wide range of topics, including "Cycling in the City: Stories of Space and Power, Experimental Approaches for Liveable Public Spaces" and "How to Deal with Demagogy and Greenwashing". The participants exchanged their views and experiences and discussed how our towns and cities can be made more liveable and which political strategies can be pursued to this end. These workshops enabled the participants to share their own experiences, but also gave them fresh sources of inspiration for their own work back home, stimulated cooperation and collaboration and enabled the participants to build new alliances.

For the full conference program and a short introduction to all the groups who attended it, see the Conference Reader, In addition, many groups brought along a poster to present what they do. These posters can be found here.

Exploring the city on foot and getting active together

Last, but not least, the conference also served to inspire the participants to take action together. Saturday afternoon, the participants took to the streets in four separate groups to explore the city. They were introduced to different parts of Brussels and informed about transport and mobility issues by local activists offering them special insights. How did the city grow historically? How was its infrastructure planned? Which social tensions arose as a result?

On Saturday evening, the participants exchanged ideas in the open space and watched the film “Bikes vs Cars”. Another part of the group spontaneously decided to take direct action in Brussels, blocking a major intersection in Saint Gilles and offering drivers an alcohol-free aperitif. In a simple and good-humoured way, the activists brought up the question how space is allocated in the city and incited discussions among and with neighbours and residents. A video of the action was made by Kollektiv Raumstation.

«There are so many of us»

Of course, much of the usual work done by the activists and conference participants is limited to their immediate local area, where they fight in their towns and cities, mostly unpaid, for a more liveable, quieter, greener and fairer urban environment for all. Precisely for this reason, they often lack the time and space for international networking. However, at the same time there lurks a danger that activists involved in local grassroots work might become bogged down by details, lose sight of the big picture or find themselves up against such strong resistance that they end up feeling demotivated.

However, a true transport revolution will take a lot of time to bring about and require large numbers of people who believe in the vision of a better urban environment. This was the main idea for RLS Brussels' “Urban Movement! Connecting Resistance and Alternatives” conference, which sought to bring activists together, inspire them and provide them in the long run with a long-term network so that they stay in touch and learn from each other. After all, as diverse as the activists' problems and strategies might seem at first glance, they all share a vision of bringing about more liveable, fairer (car-free!) cities. For this reason, the conference will be repeated at regular intervals, henceforth hosted by different European cities, backed and organised even more by the network of activists and supported by RLS Brussels.

Originally published on: https://www.rosalux.eu/en/article/1521.urban-movement-connecting-resistance-and-alternatives.html

Photo: Rise for Climate in Stockholm, Sweden Photo - VisualHunt