Unpacking the Politics of C40: ‘Critical Friendship’ for a Second Decade

It will be interesting to see how C40 positions itself with respect to such possible futures. Current C40 initiatives focus on cities financing climate action through debt and private investment for ‘bankable’ infrastructure projects, rather than lobbying for national government spending. Globally, a huge spending/financing ‘gap’ still exists for enabling societal transitions to low-carbon economies and infrastructures

Developing transition pathways for mobility in European cities – challenges and new approaches

Meeting the European Union’s 2050 climate-neutrality target will require a 90% reduction in transport-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A large proportion of these reductions will need to come from Europe’s city-regions, and urban mobility in Europe will need to change fundamentally as a result. The question for European municipalities is how they can pursue mobility planning that ensures GHG emissions decline at sufficient scale and speed to meet the EU’s 2030 and 2050 climate targets. The European Commission’s current policy framework for supporting urban mobility transitions includes the Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (SUMP) approach as one of its cornerstones, with the SUMP practitioner guidelines currently in their second iteration and EU funding for municipalities likely to become conditional on adherence to these planning principles. Based on our work within the H2020 SUMPPLUS project, we argue that new long-term planning approaches to developing transition pathways are needed that complement existing SUMP planning focused on a five- to ten-year time horizon (Smeds & Jones, 2020). In this chapter, we make reference to the cities of Barcelona and Stockholm as illustrative examples, based on conversations with representatives of the respective city governments during the webinar “Urban Mobility after COVID-19” hosted by CIDOB in April 2021

Unpacking the Politics of C40: 'Critical Friendship' for a Second Decade

It will be interesting to see how C40 positions itself with respect to such possible futures. Current C40 initiatives focus on cities financing climate action through debt and private investment for ‘bankable’ infrastructure projects, rather than lobbying for national government spending. Globally, a huge spending/financing ‘gap’ still exists for enabling societal transitions to low‐carbon economies and infrastructures

Night-time mobilities and (in)justice in London: Constructing mobile subjects and the politics of difference in policy-making

The growing interest in urban night-time economies and night-time transport policies presents an important context in which to examine how mobility justice is conceived and operationalised in policy-making. Literature on transport exclusion and transport justice documents the disadvantages experienced by different social groups and advances theoretical frameworks for distributive justice and transport accessibility. However, this literature has rarely considered the politics of whether and how mobility difference is recognised and planned for in transport policy, including issues of deliberative justice (participation) and epistemic justice (knowledge production). To address these research gaps, this paper engages with Sheller's (2018) theorisation of mobility justice and critically analyses the construction of mobile subjects in policy discourse on night-time mobility. We analyse policy documents part of night-time policy for Greater London to examine the extent to which the differentiated night-time mobilities across social categories (gender, age, ethnicity, income, etc.) are recognised – in other words, how the ‘politics of difference’ play out in transport policy-making. Findings show that the discursive construction of mobile subjects in London's night-time policy distinguishes between workers, consumers, and transport users, yet, these broad categories poorly account for differentiated mobility needs and practices. Publicly available data on differentiated night-time mobilities in London does not inform current policy discourse, obscuring disadvantages experienced by different groups of people moving through the city at night, and thus limits the capacity of existing policy interventions to address mobility injustices. These findings reaffirm the need for transport research to move beyond distributive justice and accessibility analysis, towards exploring the potential of thinking about distributive and epistemic justice for challenging the status quo of transport policy

Developing transition pathways for mobility in European cities – challenges and new approaches

Meeting the European Union’s 2050 climate-neutrality target will require a 90% reduction in transport-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A large proportion of these reductions will need to come from Europe’s city-regions, and urban mobility in Europe will need to change fundamentally as a result. The question for European municipalities is how they can pursue mobility planning that ensures GHG emissions decline at sufficient scale and speed to meet the EU’s 2030 and 2050 climate targets. The European Commission’s current policy framework for supporting urban mobility transitions includes the Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (SUMP) approach as one of its cornerstones, with the SUMP practitioner guidelines currently in their second iteration and EU funding for municipalities likely to become conditional on adherence to these planning principles. Based on our work within the H2020 SUMPPLUS project, we argue that new long-term planning approaches to developing transition pathways are needed that complement existing SUMP planning focused on a five- to ten-year time horizon (Smeds & Jones, 2020). In this chapter, we make reference to the cities of Barcelona and Stockholm as illustrative examples, based on conversations with representatives of the respective city governments during the webinar “Urban Mobility after COVID-19” hosted by CIDOB in April 2021

Equitable transport provision for night-time workers in 24-hour London

Over the past decade, cities across Europe and the US have begun to take the notion of a ‘24-hour city’ more seriously. Having recognised the economic value of night-time activities, cities such as Amsterdam and London have appointed night-time mayors to help foster the Night-Time Economy (NTE). This short research report unpacks current understandings of the NTE in London, highlighting the discrepancies between NTE as framed in policy strategies and the real nature of the NTE. It seeks to understand to what extent planning for night-time transport caters to those working in the sectors that make up the most of the NTE (health and social care services, transport and logistics), identifying blind spots in London’s current approach to night-time transport. Whilst this research project is in its early stages, this report aims to provide new methodological insights on how spatial data analysis can be leveraged to map the transport needs of night-time workers, in order to inform the design of more inclusive transport policy. More broadly, the report highlights that: - more inclusive framings of night-time strategies are possible if the NTE is viewed from the perspective of labour and the transport demand generated byworkers, rather thanfrom the perspective ofconsumption and the leisure-based economyalone; - in addition to investing in the extension of rail services to operate at night, policy development should include investigating options to improve night bus services further, such as express night buses to serve majornight-time employment areas; - access to transport needs to be understood and modelled not just in terms of access to consumption, the London Central Activities Zone or day-time destinations, but crucially include access to employment as a cornerstone

Night-time mobilities and (in)justice in London : constructing mobile subjects and the politics of difference in policy-making

The growing interest in urban night-time economies and night-time transport policies presents an important context in which to examine how mobility justice is conceived and operationalised in policy-making. Literature on transport exclusion and transport justice documents the disadvantages experienced by different social groups and advances theoretical frameworks for distributive justice and transport accessibility. However, this literature has rarely considered the politics of whether and how mobility difference is recognised and planned for in transport policy, including issues of deliberative justice (participation) and epistemic justice (knowledge production). To address these research gaps, this paper engages with Sheller's (2018) theorisation of mobility justice and critically analyses the construction of mobile subjects in policy discourse on night-time mobility. We analyse policy documents part of night-time policy for Greater London to examine the extent to which the differentiated night-time mobilities across social categories (gender, age, ethnicity, income, etc.) are recognised – in other words, how the ‘politics of difference’ play out in transport policy-making. Findings show that the discursive construction of mobile subjects in London's night-time policy distinguishes between workers, consumers, and transport users, yet, these broad categories poorly account for differentiated mobility needs and practices. Publicly available data on differentiated night-time mobilities in London does not inform current policy discourse, obscuring disadvantages experienced by different groups of people moving through the city at night, and thus limits the capacity of existing policy interventions to address mobility injustices. These findings reaffirm the need for transport research to move beyond distributive justice and accessibility analysis, towards exploring the potential of thinking about distributive and epistemic justice for challenging the status quo of transport policy

Night-time mobilities and (in)justice in London: constructing mobile subjects and the politics of difference in policy-making

The growing interest in urban night-time economies and night-time transport policies presents an important context in which to examine how mobility justice is conceived and operationalised in policy-making. Literature on transport exclusion and transport justice documents the disadvantages experienced by different social groups and advances theoretical frameworks for distributive justice and transport accessibility. However, this literature has rarely considered the politics of whether and how mobility difference is recognised and planned for in transport policy, including issues of deliberative justice (participation) and epistemic justice (knowledge production). To address these research gaps, this paper engages with Sheller's (2018) theorisation of mobility justice and critically analyses the construction of mobile subjects in policy discourse on night-time mobility. We analyse policy documents part of night-time policy for Greater London to examine the extent to which the differentiated night-time mobilities across social categories (gender, age, ethnicity, income, etc.) are recognised – in other words, how the ‘politics of difference’ play out in transport policy-making. Findings show that the discursive construction of mobile subjects in London's night-time policy distinguishes between workers, consumers, and transport users, yet, these broad categories poorly account for differentiated mobility needs and practices. Publicly available data on differentiated night-time mobilities in London does not inform current policy discourse, obscuring disadvantages experienced by different groups of people moving through the city at night, and thus limits the capacity of existing policy interventions to address mobility injustices. These findings reaffirm the need for transport research to move beyond distributive justice and accessibility analysis, towards exploring the potential of thinking about distributive and epistemic justice for challenging the status quo of transport policy