Speaker
Description
Car-oriented planning has not only shaped the built environment but has also profoundly influenced societal norms, normalising driving as the default mode of transportation. This pervasive narrative has led to well-documented consequences: sprawling effect, landscape fragmentation caused by urban infrastructure and transport network expansions, social isolation, limited public transport access, road rage, soil consumption, resource degradation, spatial injustice, a reinforced consumerist culture, air and noise pollution, and increased contributions to climate change, to cite but a few. The market and the powerful lobby of the automotive industry fuelled this narrative, inducing demand for car ownership and prioritising individual and spatially segregated mobility —car users could be considered as “flows of faceless ghostly machines” - rather than active participants in the urban fabric. The automotive sector's scale fosters state-industry-labour cooperation, promoting stability but risking to prioritise industrial and economic stability over transformative mobility policies.
This article explores how to challenge this entrenched narrative in the current political and socio-economic environment, shifting towards more equitable planning paradigms. Since the 1920s-30s, driving and car ubiquity in everyday life for potentially anyone on Earth led to complete car accessibility, higher speeds, longer distances, mobility-oriented planning and comfort over community, walkability and liveability. Yet, this mobility model is neither socially necessary nor inevitable, even if it has often seemed impossible to disrupt. Additionally, the car is not defined merely by its physical properties but by the broader systems of provision and the categories that enable and reinforce its use. These systems of frames create specific affordances that shape choices. This is particularly evident in parking policies, for instance, which have often been reactive and operational—addressing issues only when they arise in specific locations —rather than being integrated into a systemic transformation of the urban environment. Since the last century, concepts, theories, and models of human-oriented planning have been developed, leading to the consolidation of measures such as planning standards, pedestrianisation of downtowns, walking and cycling networks, the institutionalisation of the concept of piazza, Limited Traffic Zones (LTZs), regulations on noise and air pollution, and parking management strategies aimed at discouraging car use and gain revenues for maintenance or investment in other transport sectors. Governance improvements facilitated compact urban development, echoing the naturally pedestrian-friendly environments of pre-car historic cities.
However, the growth curve of global car ownership has not yet plateaued; road networks are still expanding, although ownership of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles is declining. New spatial challenges, particularly for charging infrastructure, are required by the increasing adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) — battery electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) - and all these types have different needs. Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) are adapting to promote walking, cycling, and public transport, but “path dependence” continues to reproduce problems originally associated with ICEVs, now translated to EVs. For instance, while EVs eliminate tailpipe emissions, they do not fully address non-exhaust pollutants, and the additional weight of battery packs exacerbates emissions (PM2.5) from tyre and brake wear, an issue that remains largely unregulated. Additionally, governments are offering incentives, e.g. tax breaks, free parking, and LTZ exemptions, increasing their accessibility and maintaining the persistent mono-functionality of roads and streets as car-dominated spaces.
This research contributes to planning discourse by emphasising the critical role of narratives in shaping the built environment, moving beyond the rigid notion of physical determinism. It proposes an approach to challenging deeply ingrained assumptions and fostering more equitable systems by shifting societal norms and values. The final section presents holistic solutions integrating land-use planning with long-term mobility strategies, supported by robust regulatory frameworks and proactive public engagement.
References
Caimotto, M. Cristina (2020), Discourses of Cycling, Road Users and Sustainability: An Ecolinguistic Investigation. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Caimotto, Maria Cristina (2024), Mobility Justice: An Ecolinguistic Perspective. Languages, 9(7): 242.
Hrelja, Robert and Rye, Tom (2023), Decreasing the Share of Travel by Car. Strategies for Implementing ‘Push’ or ‘Pull’ Measures in a Traditionally Car-Centric Transport and Land Use Planning. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 17(5): 446–458.
Lakoff, George (2010), Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1): 70–81.
Mattioli, Giulio, Roberts, Cameron, Steinberger, Julia K. and Brown, Andrew (2020), The Political Economy of Car Dependence: A Systems of Provision Approach. Energy Research & Social Science, 66: 101486.
Mingardo, Giuliano, Van Wee, Bert and Rye, Tom (2015), Urban Parking Policy in Europe: A Conceptualization of Past and Possible Future Trends. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 74: 268–281.
Oroumiyeh, Farzan and Zhu, Yifang (2021), Brake and Tire Particles Measured from On-Road Vehicles: Effects of Vehicle Mass and Braking Intensity. Atmospheric Environment: X, 12: 100121.
Sorensen, Andre (2015), Taking Path Dependence Seriously: An Historical Institutionalist Research Agenda in Planning History. Planning Perspectives, 30(1): 17–38.
Urry, John (2004), The ‘System’ of Automobility. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4–5): 25–39.
| Keywords | car dependence; frames; systems thinking; path dependence |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
