From post-car world
to beyond-car society

When the PostCarWorld programme team presented its initial set of questions, we clearly excluded the hypothesis of an evolution driven or imposed by outer, constraining factors. Typically, we discarded a framework in which an overwhelming climatic constraint and its ensuing legal enforcements would have forced car-users to give up their vehicle and to accept and undesired change. Our plan was, conversely, to approach the car/no-car not as a constraint but as a freedom. It is an open issue that has to be addressed by societies and its inhabitants-citizens. As a result, the context in which this question is posed is crucial since it determines the difference between the current situation and that which would correspond to people’s wishes, expectations, or assent. Where are we with the car today?

Read the final report >
↑ Scroll To Top
6 topics
  • MAKING
    OBJECTS
  • PRODUCING
    ENVIRONMENTS
  • MAPPING
    PLACES
  • THINKING
    ACTIONS
  • LIVING
    AS INDIVIDUALS
  • UNDERSTANDING
    SOCIETY
2 approaches

    INVENTING TECHNIQUES

    Quelles sont les grandes ruptures technologiques concernant les objets de la mobilité ?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Yes. Of course, with limitations. A post-car world where the use of private cars (independently from the engine type, e.g. gasoline, hybrid, electric, and the driving mode, e.g. autonomous or not) is possible in dense urban areas. Only a change in the travel habits can lead to this post-car world. The individuals living in dense urban areas should reduce the need of mobility with a densification of the activities and a change in the use of public spaces. High-speed mobility and private mobility is limited only to extra-urban transportation systems.

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    Urban environment will be well confined, compact and multi-functional. All the facilities and activities will be located at “walking distance”. Only “slow mobility” will be needed to reach everyday destinations. Large metropolitan areas will be an agglomeration of these compact urban environments, each of them with a proper center. Long distance mobility will be performed with a low frequency. Mostly for reaching recreational activities, and performed mostly with shared mobility or mass public transport.

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Electric and autonomous vehicles are considered the solution to environmental and mobility problems. However, their use will bring small modifications in the mobility systems. Considering these new technologies as a solution will postpone the emergence of a “post-car world”.

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    I find “post-car world” more direct and capable to communicate the message in a clear way. I would personally not reformulate it. However, I do not oppose to the reformulation.

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    In particular, the discussions with the members of Sub-project A2, A3, C1 and C2 have deeply changed the way in which I perceive mobility. For example, the concept of “car” evolved from a simple “metal object with four wheels” to a mean to experience the space and interact with the surrounding environment.

    Questions from other teams
    to Ricardo Scarinci (B2)

    CENTRAL ZONE QUESTION

    Can you provide at least one question to each other subproject?

    From A1:

    General question: how feasible (considering costs, space, accessibility) do you think is the implementation of such a mean of transport in a Swiss city center? and how wide should the network be to guarantee a good investment?

    From A2:

    Can we get a mapping of your case study?

    From A3:

    How to define in which roads an AMV should be implemented? Will the installation of an AMV in a street not annihilate any possibility of an increase in urbanity? Does the limits to the centers it produced are desirable?

    To define the roads where to install AMW we used an oph’mization algorithm. See here for details
    http://transp-or.epfl.ch/documents/technicalReports/ScaMarBie_AMWopt_2017.pdf

    Indeed no. The limits induced are not desirable, they are one of the main drawback of the system.

    From B1:

    What are you impressions on the possible competition between cycling, public transport and AMWs, since they would all have a similar average speed of 15km/h?

    I have no investgated this aspect. The comparison is not trivial. Comfort, costs, accessibility and other aspects should be considered. My impression is that AMW are in direct competton only for short trips of less than 500 meters.

    From C1 and C2:

    Has your research revealed insight into morphological, ergonomic factors for mobility systems? In retrospect, and in light of your research, what would you suggest designers learn from the practical failure of historic precedents for such moving walkway systems – from Chicago’s pier walkway in 1893, recent high profile failures?

    I do not have answers to the questons. My research did not cover these aspects. Sorry 😉

    ?

    INNOVATIONS MODALES

    Qu’est-ce qu’une voiture en tant que mode de transport ?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    LAB

    What experiences are the most interresting for understanding and considering the PostCarWorld?

    Is a post-car world possible? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Many post-car “worlds” exist already. “It is a luxury to be able to live without a car, and many of us benefit that luxury already in European cities” (Alfred Peter, Interview). Despite this possibility, cars still dominate the transport world – with a bit less than a car per person in United States (78/100), and half a car per person in Switzerland in 2014. Nevertheless, several transitions are underway that are dynamically interrelated as they derive from the same observations and limits of car system, aspirations as well as emergencies for change. The main hurdles are likely interests invested in the car and petroleum industries and their combined influence, both direct and indirect, on regional transportation policy.

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    Vehicular Units // The steel and petroleum car (Urry 2004) transforms with emerging new materials for constructing ‘car’ bodies, new fuel systems, and with consideration of space as a scare and valuable resource in the cities. The sharp contrast between the pedestrian and the automobile, as the antagonist figures of the contemporary city that was formulated in urban discourses, urban projects, and popular culture, can blur by the emergence of various vehicular units. These vehicles differ in the characteristics of their physical shell and their speed and therefore differently impact and interact with their immediate environment. The challenge is, on one hand, to encourage such innovations and on the other, give them space and recognition. Failing to recognize and accommodate them (as it has has been the case so far) impedes the real and visible change. Civic Design of Green Infrastructures // One important aspect of modal shift strategies since 1980s, has been de-infrastructurizing the city; metamorphosis of the urban highways, reconquering waterfronts, and pedestrianising the city centres. “Still the most urgent task in the agenda of cities is to re-distribute the space between different modes"" (Federico Parlotto, Interview). « C’est le rapport de force qu’on doit changer. Il faut modifier les équilibres entre la voiture et les autres moyens » (according to Alfred Peter, Interview). A post-car world can be facilitated by the rehabilitation of the civic design discipline – capitalizing on recent increases in international investment in regional ‘greenways’ – as applied to an armature of ecological networks supplemented by mobility infrastructure, a dual network relating ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ with soft mobility (supported by advocates of ecology – in governance, wildlife organizations, etc.) and active mobility (supported by advocates of well-being – research hospitals, pharmaceutical industries, etc.) for regional inhabitants.

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Car has evoked contrasted imaginaries through its history, aroused fear and fascination, and has been constantly denounced or praised. While some argue that what is referred to as “disenchantment with car” is rather an academic perspective than a tangible reality in everyday lives, it is clear that its myths around singularity and speed are over, and “the obsessions with absolute speed are giving place to an urge for mastering time” (Bernard Reichen Interview). In their quest for efficient and active travel time, car becomes a mode like others, efficient in some contexts and constraining in some others. In this perspective, moving towards post-car is not the triumph of slowness over speed or pedestrian over car. It is rather about speeds that matter, within different urban contexts, and different levels of density and intensity: mastering the travel time, rather than being obsessed with speed. That is to move towards agility. We define agility as the capacity to mediate between different speeds, depending on the context, in order to maintain the high accessibility at every moment; providing continuity and smooth transitions between spaces, modes and speeds. In addition to the aforementioned need for a change in mentality (and in imaginaries too), misinformation and ‘perception management’ tends to confuse both designers and the public as to possible futures – so a revitalization of community participation, community forums, and community education will necessarily inform any post-car future.

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    No. Post-car world is suggestive, while Beyond-car society sounds descriptive. Post-car world expresses directly the spatial and tangible aspects of such a change while, at the same time, it re-directs us to “imagined worlds” in Appadurai’s sense: as a constructed landscape of collective aspirations [Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity al large: cultural dimensions of globalization.]. Beyond-car society sounds very close to other ‘beyond’ assertions (beyond the city, beyond rural urban, beyond nature culture, etc.), so the phrase has distracting associations. Post-Car World is both stronger and more suggestive, more imaginative, even.

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    A lot! Having developed these alternative ‘post-car’ futures, both their viability and their desirability are demonstrated – and demonstrated in a great variety, in fact, illustrating how the shift from ‘transit-oriented development’ to ‘pedestrian-oriented development’ can facilitate region-specific qualities of life.

    GESTION

    What are the actual situations which allow approaching the emergence of a Beyond Car Society?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    The main hurls identified by the interviewees are some constraints, or a change of mentalities. Spontaneously, the interviewees only see the restrictions, the shortfalls that a PCW will create. And that is not a specificity of the car drivers: even people without driving license express that. They imagine a loss of independence, freedom, etc. They didn’t perceived the opportunities that could emerge from a diminution of the car importance. These qualities appear when people try to imagine their surrounding without car, when they situate themselves from outside of the car, immerged in the public space. Changing their point of view, they change their link to the car, which is no more seen as positively as before.

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    I don’t have enough knowledge to pronounce myself whether it is possible or not. So, I will transmit some inhabitants’ point of view. Do they think it is possible or not ? I would say that it depend on what we mean by « possible ». Because we asked them to do so, most of the interviewees tried to project themselves in a post-car world. Apart from the few people who categorically refused to imagine it, the interviewees thought that it could be technically possible to live in a PCW. Our ancestors lived without car until 100 years ago, so why couldn’t we live without it again ? The interviewees, in their big majority, consider that they could adapt themselves to a PCW. Their way of life would change but it would be possible to do so. Among the interviewees, the majority argues that a PCW is not probable. Even if they can imagine their surrounding and their way of life without car, they don’t believe that it is the direction we do take : And this is precisely the change in their way of life that makes it not desirable to live in a world without car. Car is seen as something that gives freedom - that allows more than it prevents - even by the non-drivers. For most of the interviewees, having a car brings a lot of advantages (more than the disadvantages). Beyond the practical aspects, it is a source of pleasure (of driving, to access in particular places whenever you want, to own an aesthetic and powerful object, etc.). We can say that a PCW is possible but not probable neither desirable.

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    For some interviewees, the limits of the offer are seen as hurdles. When they evoke alternatives to the car, they talk about the high cost, the limited network, etc. They stay at the level of the replacement: which transport mode could replace the car in their life situations. Wider, some people accuse the economic context or the lack of flexibility of the housing market. But it is the lack of desire to do without the car that appears as the biggest hurdle. Because it offers an efficient public transport network, the Swiss context allows us to go further the practical reasons to use the car. We’ve met several people who have access to car’s alternatives (and capacities to use it), but who use their car anyway. Mentalities are often cited as hurdles to change. The interviewees argue that « people » (including them or not) are attached to their way of life, to the comfort provided by the car, and don’t want to change it.

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    Yes.

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    The qualitative survey shows the unstable character of the needs and expectations. The urban planners need to take that into account. The actor/environment interaction helps to define the role of the urban planners. It gives them a reading grid to accompany the societal changes. Their goal should be to reveal the potential of places to support expected practices. Experimentation seems to be a good way of action to adjust the offer to the demand, by integrating the inhabitants to the planning process."

    Questions from other teams
    to Jade Rudler (A3)

    CENTRAL ZONE QUESTION

    Can you provide at least one question to each other subproject?

    From A1:

    I would disentangle the individuals’ mode choice and the social links: if on one hand taking a bus or a train forces you to share the way with several people, on the other hand it’s pretty common to observe commuters listening to the music or reading a book. Moreover, nowadays private modes, like the carpooling, help to create a real community of people and social links. According to the second model inferred by the focus group (i.e. mobility will decrease leading to more humanity and social links), do you refer to individual private mobility (car)? A decrease in car use doesn’t necessarily lead to an increase in collective public transport. It could be that individuals, still prefer individual (public) transport like bike-sharing or taxi as shown by our analysis (we didn’t include the option bike-sharing, but still a huge increase in bike mode can be observed).

    Answer:

    From A2:

    How to change the points of view of the drivers and car passengers on the car (from an interior point of view to an exterior one)?

    Answer:

    From A3:

    What are the obstacles to a Pre-Post-Car-World? Which type of additional work needs to be done in order to more realistically represent the behaviour of people?

    Answer:

    From B2:

    Car sharing and pooling systems show an increase of distance travelled by car, often instead of slow mobility or public transport. Do you have a suggestion on how to reduce this trend while incentive these shared systems in your Pre-Post-Car-World?

    Answer:

    From C1 and C2:

    How important are spatial conditions of access, entry and egress to your research, and by what metrics were they accounted for?
    Given the challenges of moving walkway systems to address the range of physical capabilities of diverse populations – the very young and very old, and handicapped particularly – how has your research addressed the context in which these systems are deployed? What role can designers have in creating an effective setting for these systems?

    Answer:

    MARCHÉS

    Quelles sont les grandes tendances de l’économie de la voiture, tenant compte des logiques de soutien à l’automobile ?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    GEOGRAPHIES

    Quelles sont les configurations spatiales globales, régionales et locales où l’on peut d’ores et déjà observer la mise en œuvre de la Beyond Car Society?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    [Réponse éventuelle…]

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    [Réponse éventuelle…]

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    [Réponse éventuelle…]

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    [Réponse éventuelle…]

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    [Réponse éventuelle…]

    Basil Schmid

    CHANGE

    Quels sont les changements comportementaux des acteurs qu’un scénario Post Car World permet d’anticiper?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    The main difficulty that the post-car world faces is a strong dependence of our contemporary society on cars. However, the world without privately owned cars is possible.

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    With the approaching era of autonomous vehicles, it would be possible to serve the needs of people by providing a public and shared autonomous fleet of vehicles. This would substantially reduce the amount of cars, but they would still be present, which goes along twitch our pre-post-car world approach.

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    The strong dependence on cars and already developed structures that serve the purpose of owning a car.

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    Yes.

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    The transition from the car oriented world to something beyond is very complex. The insights gained from the PCW project will help us to better understand the relationship between people and privately owned cars and people's attitudes toward shared vehicles. These results provide us with new views that can help us to appropriately tackle the car issue in the future.

    Questions from other teams
    to Basil Schmid, Milos Balac (B1)

    CENTRAL ZONE QUESTION

    Can you provide at least one question to each other subproject?

    From A1:

    I do not have any question. Curious to see their full results.

    From A2:

    What would be the efficient threshold at which cars become expensive enough?

    Answer:

    From A3:

    What are the obstacles to a Pre-Post-Car-World? Which type of additional work needs to be done in order to more realistically represent the behaviour of people?

    Answer:

    From B2:

    Car sharing and pooling systems show an increase of distance travelled by car, often instead of slow mobility or public transport. Do you have a suggestion on how to reduce this trend while incentive these shared systems in your Pre-Post-Car-World?

    Answer:

    From C1 and C2:

    How important are spatial conditions of access, entry and egress to your research, and by what metrics were they accounted for?
    Given the challenges of moving walkway systems to address the range of physical capabilities of diverse populations – the very young and very old, and handicapped particularly – how has your research addressed the context in which these systems are deployed? What role can designers have in creating an effective setting for these systems?

    Answer:

    URBANITIES

    En quoi le Post Car World contribue-t-il à l’émergence d’une nouvelle urbanité générale et de nouvelles urbanités individuelles, et selon quels processus concrets?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    MARKETING

    Comment les individus sont-ils redéfinis dans un PCW?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Unfortunately, I can’t envisage a car free world. Nowadays car is very rooted in the society: it’s the most used mean of transport in almost all developed countries and it’s becoming more and more popular also in developing countries. Even though the awareness of negative externalities due to the spasmodic car use is growing fast, no actions are planned towards a post car world: it’s indeed hard to imagine a continuing substitution of the car with a different mean of transport.

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    /

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Most studies have shown that it’s possible to convince people to leave their private car providing incentives, but as soon as the incentive is removed, the initial situation is restored. The main obstacles to a free car world are the flexibility and the independence that a car can offer. However, my idea of transport in the future envisages a society where the role of the private car is reduced and where more and more people will use sharing (car-sharing, carpooling, private car rent) or individual public (for example taxi, Uber) vehicles. Going towards this scenario, several companies will provide these services and therefore prices for renting a car or for a taxi ride will drop, ensuring at the same time the flexibility and the independence that a car driver wants and less private cars circulating on the roads.

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    Considering how the project is coming along and the results we are presenting, I would be happy to avoid the expression PostCar-world.

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    Obviously, I have now a deeper knowledge on such a topic, especially regarding the factors that influence the choice of such a mean of transport, and I can better realize it in the everyday life when people face the “how should I get there” dilemma. Unfortunately, I still think that in the contemporary society, only the knowledge of the big problems related to the car use, is not sufficient to change the status quo. However, my personal consideration of the car didn’t change during this period: I have always looked at and considered the car as a mean of transport to avoid when unnecessary.

    Questions from other teams
    to Antonio Boriello (A1)

    CENTRAL ZONE QUESTION

    Can you provide at least one question to each other subproject?

    From A2:

    From your results, is it possible to explain the lack of effect of environmental concerns on mobility?

    According to the huge literature on this topic (Golob and Hensher (1998), Collins and Chambers (2005), Nilsson and Küller (2000), Johansson et al. (2006), Nordlund and Garvill (2003)), we hypothesized that a respondent who has a strong interest in environmental concerns will more likely choose a green/public transportation mode. However, even though evidences from both the factor analysis and the structural equation model, described in detail in the report, show a strong interest of respondents (especially under 26 years old male who practice a lot of sport) for the environment, such an interest does not hold in the mode choice model: indeed, there is no evidence that having a weaker concern for the environment increases the probability of choosing individual motorized means, like private car or motorbike.
    A possible explanation is that the responses to the items used to measure the Environment latent construct are not too heterogeneous and are unable to explain the variance in the choice model. In other words, environmental concerns are an important issue for all the respondents, regardless the mode of transport that they choose for commute.

    From A3:

    Is there a difference of appreciation between the interviewees who take the driver point of view and those who don’t? Do the disadvantages of the car can be deterrent for the interviewees? In which situations?

    The sample originally includes 849 respondents but those who don’t have a driver license were excluded from this analysis. Every respondent has a driver point of view, given that our main goal was to explore the pleasure of driving and the effect that it has on the mode choice.
    If by disadvantages you mean the negative externalities that driving a car implies, such as being stuck in traffic, stress, pollution, etc., these factors are included in the attitudes and they shape the individuals’ choices. However, in the model estimation we control for such disadvantages and we can infer independently the value that any other factor (like cost, travel time, system density, wage, gender, etc.) has on the choice.

    From B1:

    Based on your research do you expect to see an increase or a decrease in the use of car in the next 10 years? And why?

    Using the estimates obtained through the hybrid choice model, we can calculate the market shares of the alternatives, which are reported in the table below (MODEL). These values represent the mode shares for a commuting trip as described in the experiment (5 years after the degree, with a work coherent to the education, workplace within the same city of residence).

    An interesting practice with the model estimates is to forecast the behavior of respondents varying the scenario. First of all, it’s important to clarify the validity of such a practice, considering two main reasons: first, the experiment that we conducted is a “stated preference” and it includes a non-existing alternative (i.e. moving walkway) and second, the model estimated considers individual attitudes, which we don’t know how will change in the future.

    Given that, I attached an Excel spreadsheet containing a decision support system, where you can vary the levels of attributes (travel time, cost and density of the system) in the three different cities (Lugano, Lausanne and Zurich) for all the alternatives and see the changes in the market shares. Here I present two different scenarios (STATUS QUO and HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO), in which I report the market shares considering different sets of alternatives available: 1) all alternatives available; 2) moving walkway excluded; 3) private car excluded.

    In the first table STATUS QUO, the market shares are calculated (after calibrating the model) according to the stated experiment consisting of choice tasks on a future situation (5 years), where the respondents imagine having a work coherent with their education and they work within the same city of residence. The values for travel time, cost and density are the actual values of the three cities for commuting trips (you can check these values in the green tables in the excel file).

    In the second table “HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO”, we assume a situation where the policy makers “push” the public and green alternatives and penalize the private car use. In detail, travel time for public transport (PT) is 10% lower than the actual level, density (measured as walking km to cover the distance home – workplace) for PT is -5% and for MW is -10%, whilst private car has a 10% increase in both cost and travel time.

    MODEL

    Alternatives Market share
    Public transport (bust, train, tram) 23.59%
    Bike 21.89%
    Moving Walkway 7.50%
    Private Car 18.20%
    Car-sharing 0.59%
    Carpooling 4.09%
    Motorbike 11.64%
    Electric bike 12.50%

     

    STATUS QUO

    Alternatives All alternatives Moving Walkway excluded Private car excluded
    Public transport (bust, train, tram) 23.11% 30.00% 48.25%
    Bike 9.44% 12.00% 18.52%
    Moving Walkway 14.14% n.a. 22.66%
    Private Car 48.44% 52.00% n.a.
    Car-sharing 0.81% 1.00% 1.82%
    Carpooling 0.88% 1.00% 1.69%
    Motorbike 2.64% 3.00% 5.88%
    Electric bike 0.54% 1.00% 1.19%

     

    HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO

    Alternatives All alternatives Moving Walkway excluded Private car excluded
    Public transport (bust, train, tram) 24.93% 32.68% 48.22%
    Bike 9.90% 12.72% 17.98%
    Moving Walkway 15.54% n.a. 23.58%
    Private Car 44.47% 48.18% n.a.
    Car-sharing 0.82% 1.03% 1.74%
    Carpooling 0.94% 1.07% 1.63%
    Motorbike 2.84% 3.24% 5.73%
    Electric bike 0.56% 1.08% 0.74%

     

    The market shares for the hypothetical scenario reflect the changes imposed by the “policy makers”: the share of PT increases in both the configurations with and without MW, whilst when private car is not available, the policy doesn’t have any kind of effect. Similarly, the MW share increases in both the scenarios where this alternative is available to the commuters. Conversely, the market share for private car decreases when it is available in the set of alternatives. All the other alternatives do not show huge changes meaning that the loss of the private car share is absorbed by PT and MW, which are the alternatives on which the policies have acted directly.

     

    DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWO SCENARIOS

    Alternatives All alternatives Moving Walkway excluded Private car excluded
    Public transport (bust, train, tram) 1.82% 2.68% -0.02%
    Bike 0.45% 0.72% -0.54%
    Moving Walkway 1.40% n.a. 0.92%
    Private Car -3.97% -3.82% n.a.
    Car-sharing 0.02% 0.03% -0.08%
    Carpooling 0.06% 0.07% -0.06%
    Motorbike 0.20% 0.24% -0.15%
    Electric bike 0.03% 0.08% -0.07%

     

    Such an analysis can be useful in order to understand how the population will respond to a new incentive or a new policy, and it’s a valid tool to study the elasticity of any factor affecting the choice decision process (travel time, cost, density, but also sociodemographic characteristics).

    You can use the excel spreadsheet attached according to the change that you think will most likely happen in 10 years time.

    From B2:

    Do you think that “attitudinal aspects”, such as the pleasure of driving, can be quantified using your methodology?

    The pleasure of driving is a latent construct and as such is not measurable directly. The aim of the work is not to assign a value to any individual for the pleasure of driving, but rather to explore if this construct affects the mode choice in a commuting setting. It is possible to assign a score for the pleasure of driving to the individuals using the structural equation model, but however it makes no sense to comment the absolute value of this score. For instance, saying that individual 1 has a pleasure of driving of 5.67 is not a relevant information, but it can be interesting to compare his score with that of a different individual and infer which characteristics contribute to a higher score (to do that, look at the significant socio-demographic characteristics in the structural part of the structural equation model).
    For instance, a male with low education has a higher probability of being interested in car aesthetics and performance, which in turns positively affects the pleasure of driving.

    From C1 & C2:

    To what degree are existing expectations regarding mobility determined by existing conditions, as distinct from future expectations in light of options for future conditions as illustrated by the four variants?
    Was this distinction between ‘existing’ and ‘future’ emphasized in your research questions regarding expectations?
    How did your research ultimately address phased implementation in light of the variants – and how was it illustrated for respondents?

    We analyze the expectations of the respondents using the economic demand principle which aims at measuring the desire for a specific service (transport mode in this case). In particular, we calculate the market shares for the different transportation modes in two different contexts: the first one includes the moving walkway (mw), whose functionality has been widely explained to the respondents before distributing the survey, whilst the second context excludes this innovative alternative and is therefore based only on the present expectations. Looking at the tables above (“Status quo” and “Hypothetical scenario”) the market share of the mw is higher than car-sharing, car-pooling, motorbike, bike and e-bike, revealing a huge impact of the future expectations. As concerns the four variants, in our part of the experiment we didn’t consider the freight transport, but rather we focused on the commuting as it is the second reason (24%) for travelling after leisure in Switzerland (the most preferred mean for commuting is an individual motorized one, ranging from almost 55% in Zurich to 83% in Ticino – Bundesamt für Statistik, 2010).

    PRACTICIES

    Quels types d’individualités favorisent la transition vers un Post Car World?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    First, the world was without cars for most of its history, and in many parts of the contemporary world, the car is still unaffordable for most. The end of autosolism is probable. However, the end of the car object is less likely to happen. The car object changes through new uses (e.g. sharing). Moreover, it depends of how the car is understood, how should we consider the notion “car” in the question?

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    We can sketch two scenarios. The first scenario is to envision high mobility and door-to-door mobility through other means. The second scenario is to envision a reduction of mobility and a relocalisation of daily lives, with an increased mobility for goods.

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Some of the hurdles to the emergence of a post-car world are: - the importance of the principle of the least effort (concerning walking and cycling), - stereotypes about the costs of the car (undervaluation), - lack of sensitivity for global warming, - complexity of daily schedules, - comfort, - pleasure of driving, - the value of liberty conceived as movement-without-constraint.

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    The scenarios 2 and 3 [LESQUELS ?] are compatible with this new definition, if we rightly understand the idea of Beyond in relation with the concept of Aufhebung.

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    First, the discussion of the post-car world project raised interest (fascination about the radicalism and the avant-gardism of the project; the fear of a retrograde step; an impossible wish; the risk of losing a mean of transgression and to purge passions). From another perspective, it was a provocative way to study and develop future-oriented methods of inquiry.

    Questions from other teams
    to Alexandre Rigal (A2)

    CENTRAL ZONE QUESTION

    Can you provide at least one question to each other subproject?

    From A1:

    You conducted 53 interviews in which respondents highlight the importance of money for travels but you state that “taking seriously and literally” such an evaluation gives importance to mobility stereotypes, which in turn participate to the production of “cost ignorance”. Could you please explain according to what their cost evaluation is biased?
    How do you position your argument that “transport policies should not be based on money and costs” when in transport literature this is the main factor influencing individuals’ choice?
    Totally agree with the threefold approach to urban spaces, but could the installation of facilities, like public restrooms and changing rooms where people can take a shower, help increasing the active mobility? In Australia a lot of people commute by bike or running long distances as they can take a shower and get changed directly in their workplace (private changing room and restrooms).

    Answer:

    From A3:

    How to create new stereotypes (2.3.1)? Who would have this responsibility?

    Answer:

    From B1:

    You mention that the future without the car could take two forms. Can you explain, in your opinion, which form would be more possible to occur, which one would be more effective and could these forms be combined?

    Answer:

    From B2:

    Do you think that the same “post-car world” can be envision in the different “gradients of urbanity” that you investigate?

    Answer:

    From C1 and C2:

    Given diverse interpretations of ‘urbanity’, and given the input from your research, how would you characterize the qualities or metrics of popular Swiss urbanity? Is it distinct from other popular conceptions of urbanity? Is it distinct from region to region – i.e. determined by occupation, topography or by affinities with French, German, and Italian cultures?

    Answer:

    POLITICS

    Quelles alternatives politiques dans le cadre du débat en faveur ou contre la Beyond Car Society?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Yes. The main hurdles are likely interests vested in the car and petroleum industries and their combined influence, both direct and indirect, on regional transportation policy.

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    A post-car world can be facilitated by the rehabilitation of the civic design discipline – capitalizing on recent increases in international investment in regional ‘greenways’ – as applied to an armature of ecological networks supplemented by mobility infrastructure, a dual network relating ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ with soft mobility (supported by advocates of ecology – in governance, wildlife organizations, etc.) and active mobility (supported by advocates of well-being – research hospitals, pharmaceutical industries, etc.) for regional inhabitants.

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    In addition to the aforementioned, misinformation and ‘perception management’ tends to confuse both designers and the public as to possible futures – so a revitalization of community participation, community forums, and community education will necessarily inform any post-car future.

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    [DOUBLON] It sounds very close to other ‘beyond’ assertions I’ve heard (beyond the city, beyond rural urban, beyond nature culture, etc.), so the phrase has distracting associations – I find Post-Car World both stronger and more suggestive, more imaginative, even.

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    [DOUBLON] Having developed these alternative ‘post-car’ futures, both their viability and their desirability are demonstrated – and demonstrated in a great variety, in fact, illustrating how the shift from ‘transit-oriented development’ to ‘pedestrian-oriented development’ can facilitate region-specific qualities of life.

    Questions from other teams
    to Matthew Skjonsberg (C2)

    CENTRAL ZONE QUESTION

    Can you provide at least one question to each other subproject?

    From A1:

    No questions.

    From A2:

    What do you mean by intergenerational legacy? And in which way does it apply to a post-car world?

    Intergenerational legacy pertains to the continuity of knowledge and values beneficial to civilization generally, and to civic infrastructure in particular. To paraphrase evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, “With so many researchers focused on what changes, it is equally important – and possibly even more important – to pay attention to what stays the same.” To ensure that short-term opportunistic benefits for some do not compromise long-term values shared more widely, in my research I have come to recommend a three-generation time horizon for regional design and mobility infrastructure. A review of historic and contemporary efforts in this direction validates the assertion that these are intergenerational initiatives that benefit from such continuity of knowledge.

    From A3:

    Which is the link of this research with the PCW project? What, concretely, does it bring to the PCW subject?

    Context. The theme of technological cycles and obsolescence are addressed, illuminating the relations of ‘culture’ and ‘nature’ before the introduction of the automobile. It concerns the car, it concerns the soil, and it concerns the car-based principles of The Charter of Athens – as they were applied in cities – and the critical reappraisal of those principles in my work with the UN in creating The Charter of Elements. And at the same time, it addresses the crisis of determinism, symptomatic of the linear paradigm – which is related to technological obsolescence – contrasting this with the demonstrable ecological, social and economic benefits obtained by embracing nonlinear design methods.

    From B1:

    What are the main findings of your research for the PCW project?

    Roads with improved surfaces were not originally built for cars, but for bicycles. Between 1900 and 1940 dozens of cities on both sides of the Atlantic established regional ‘park systems’ for the mobility of pedestrians and bicycles: in some cases these initiatives were immediately challenged by monopolistic railroad interests, tying up the construction of such systems for years, and even precluding their creation. In other cases the systems were successfully established, only to be undone a generation later by monopolistic automobile and petroleum interests whose methods typically involve undue influence and corruption – literally transforming ‘parkways’ into ‘freeways’, and ultimately providing fewer mobility options.
    The automobile’s aggressive displacement of other modes of transit coincides with the historic displacement of the ‘civic design’ discipline – with its emphasis on civic life and sociability – by ‘urban design’ – a discipline with a distinctly commercial emphasis. Meanwhile important parallel initiatives like the ‘greenways’ movement continue to succeed in establishing regional mobility infrastructure that also contributes to ecological vitality, despite the efforts of industry-sponsored obstruction in governance, academia and practice. Rehabilitating the ‘civic design’ discipline is an important step toward enabling infrastructure suitable to the long view of ‘three generations,’ acknowledging increasing skepticism regarding the relatively one-sided nature of urban design while capitalizing on the early successes of the discipline’s founders, as well as those more recent successes of the interdisciplinary ‘greenways’ movement.

    From B2:

    Do you think that the insight obtained from a “Post-car Leman City” can be applicable to other urban contexts, in other nations and other cultures?

    Yes, the insights obtained are explicitly related to the importance of site-specificity and designs responsive to context. Further, many countries are only now beginning to develop their transportation infrastructure, and their expectations tend to be shaped by what they perceive as the Western ‘gold standard’. Unfortunately that standard tends toward a kind of technological determinism advanced by academics and policymakers who serve as ‘technical enablers’ of industrial hegemony. By upgrading the standard from ‘transit-oriented development’ to ‘pedestrian-oriented development’ the interests of other nations and cultures will also be served.
    Having said that, it is equally likely that ‘Post-Car Leman City’ will be continue to be informed by innovations made in other contexts in an intergenerational dialogic exchange – even, or especially, those innovations made by citizens of ‘less developed’ nations and cultures. One dialogic example of positive non-linearity is illustrated by the historic effectiveness of Swiss cable cars in the Alps prompted visiting Americans to hire a Swiss company (Von Roll, established 1803) to install the system in New York as a temporary measure for public transit in 1976. The system became permanent when it was found to be both popular and effective. Columbians visiting New York were followed the trail back to Switzerland, hiring a Swiss company to establish a system in urban Medellin to great success in 2004 – making it only the second system in the work dedicated to public transit – prompting a re-evaluation of the system generally, and seeing the system subsequently deployed for public transit in urban contexts such as Munich (2005) and Portland, Oregon (2006). Last year plans were unveiled for such a system in Morges, bringing the influence full circle.

    URBANISM

    Comment les individus sont-ils redéfinis dans un PCW?

    Is a post-car world possible ? What are eventually the main hurls to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Many post-car “worlds” exist already. “It is a luxury to be able to live without a car, and many of us benefit that luxury already in European cities” (Alfred Peter, Interview). Despite this possibility, cars still dominate the transport world –with a bit less than a car per person in United States (78/100), and half a car per person in Switzerland in 2014.

    If you say yes to the first question, could you propose a short description?

    It is rather about speeds that matter, within different urban contexts, and different levels of density and intensity: mastering the travel time, rather than being obsessed with speed. That is to move towards agility. We define agility as the capacity to mediate between different speeds, depending on the context, in order to maintain the high accessibility at every moment; providing continuity and smooth transitions between spaces, modes and speeds.

    What are eventually the main hurdles you can identify which would resist to the emergence of this new environment of mobilities?

    Nevertheless, several transitions are underway that are dynamically interrelated as they derive from the same observations and limits of car system, aspirations as well as emergencies for change. - the object of car - its place in cities - what it means to its users - The steel and petroleum car (Urry 2004) transforms with emerging new materials for constructing ‘car’ bodies, new fuel systems, and with consideration of space as a scare and valuable resource in the cities. The sharp contrast between the pedestrian and the automobile, as the antagonist figures of the contemporary city that was formulated in urban discourses, urban projects, and popular culture, can blur by the emergence various vehicular units. These vehicles differ in the characteristics of their physical shell and their speed and therefore differently impact and interact with their immediate environment. The challenge is, on one hand, to encourage such innovations and on the other, give them space and recognition. Failing to recognize and accommodate them (as it has been the case so far) impedes the real and visible change. - One important aspect of modal shift strategies since 1980s, has been de-infrastructurizing the city; metamorphosis of the urban highways, reconquering waterfronts, and pedestrianizing the city centers. “Still the most urgent task in the agenda of cities is to re-distribute the space between different modes"" (Federico Parolotto) (C’est le rapport de force qu’on doit changer. Il faut modifier les équilibres entre la voiture et les autres moyens. Alfred Peter) - Car has evoked contrasted imaginaries through its history, aroused fear and fascination, and has been constantly denounced or praised. While some argue that what is referred to as “disenchantment with car” is rather an academic perspective than a tangible reality in everyday lives, it is clear that its myths around singularity and speed are over, and “the obsessions with absolute speed are giving place to an urge for mastering time” (Bernard Reichen) In their quest for efficient and active travel time, car becomes a mode like others, efficient in some contexts and constraining in some others. In this perspective, moving towards post-car is not the triumph of slowness over speed or pedestrian over car.

    Several members of the group suggest to preferentially use the expression Beyond-car society. Do you agree with this reformulation?

    No. Post-car world is suggestive, while Beyond-car society sounds descriptive. Post-car world expresses directly the spatial and tangible aspects of such change while at the same time re-directs us to “imagined worlds” in Appadurai’s sense: as a constructed landscape of collective aspirations Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity al large: cultural dimensions of globalization.

    To what extent your work and your commitment in the PCW project have generated changes in the way you address the car issue in contemporary societies?

    [DOUBLON] A lot!

    Questions from other teams
    to Farzaneh Bahrami (C1)

    CENTRAL ZONE QUESTION

    Can you provide at least one question to each other subproject?

    From A1:

    I like the threefold approach on effort but I don’t agree that people choose according to the logic of the allocation of scarce resources and the principle of least effort: literature is plenty of works on pleasure of travelling or pleasure of walking, where the travel time or the distance are not minimized to get the highest individual’s utility. According to the random utility theory, any individual ponders and chooses the alternative (mean of transport in such a case) that maximizes his own utility, given a constraint: such a constraint can be physical (money or travel time) or attitudinal (effort, enjoyment). Within that constraint, individuals can make their own decision, and therefore decide to pay more (usually cost is perceived as a proxy for quality), to take a longer route to enjoy the landscape, or just to walk more for physical benefit.
    What do you mean by “intensity of a public space” when you refer to plurality of vehicular units?

    – That’s exactly what the work on effort is about: to argue that not always people’s choice is based on “the principle of least effort”.

    – By intensification of public space I mean providing the opportunities for more interactions:

    Taking public space as space of spontaneous socialization and exposure to alterities, the efficiency of which “is based on interaction between those who, provisionally, inhabit it” (Lévy, 2014: Inhabiting),

    and assuming that cars (hard shell private bubbles, as often described) reduce this capacity of public space, I hypothesize that diversification of vehicular units, with softer shells intensifies the public space. (shell, determined primarily by the speed of the VU and characteristics of its physical body, is the extent to which a transport mode communicates with or is separated from its immediate environment)

    From A2:

    Can you exemplify the notion of agility?

    As example of innovations increasing agility, I can think of the integrated digital ticketing systems, unifying different regions and different transport providers.

    Or the dock-less shared bicycles (in Munich, Belfort, etc.) that enable the user to switch their mode at their will, leaving the bike at their destination, at the bus stop, or as entering more crowded pedestrian streets.

    Shared economy as such, in general, improves agility. (Getting close to the old Walt Disney idea of disposable car: see min 36’:10’’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0q_oP9TPD4 )

    From A3:

    What is the difference between Agility and Motility ?

    Motility is the potential and actual capacity to be mobile.
    Agility, is proposed as a third way of representing, theorizing, and designing the speeds, beyond the fast/slow dualism, a tentative concept to go beyond hailing slowness or demonizing speed. Acknowledging that travel time matters (as show the interviews), it implies swiftness but not necessarily through increase in absolute speeds (see the examples above)

    From B1:

    Can you give a recommendation to the city planers in one tweeter message (140 characters) on the development of future cities that want to move toward a beyond-car society?

    To move toward a beyond-car society:  alternatives to car must be available and desirable; to that end, an urgent task is the re-distribution of urban space among modes. 

    From B2:

    Often, technological inventions have modified the live style of individuals more than changes in the social habits. Do you consider that the “future mobility” will be driven by social changes, or by innovative technologies?

    “Future Mobility” most probably is determined by how new technologies are accommodated in urban environments (urban policies, economical and political will) and what meanings are created around them. This can be testified through several examples of past innovative technologies with very minimal impact on mobility of their future: the early electric car as a “woman’s vehicle” or the Dutch Witkar, an early technology-based car-sharing project in 1970s in Netherlands.