The preceding contributions of Frey and Emberger in this workshop prepare the theory-based path from the
layer-based model of human behaviour to the acting principles of a human-centered design of urban spaces,
streetscapes and transport structures.
Designing transport infrastructures and urban streetscapes poses an ethical challenge for the human being a
part of a socio-technical regime. Not only are humans of course in every stage of life and health every-day
users of these designed structures, some also act as planning agents of the very same – either as planners or
in a public participation. Densely intertwined with the ethics question of properly designing urban mobility
structures is the question on where and how to start the change of structures. Overcoming mental barriers
among planners and decision makers as well as users not yet accustomed to a changed streetscape pose a
considerable challenge for shaping society’s dynamically evolving urban transport regimes.
Human mobility behaviour is subject to “fast” adaptability, if change management techniques are applied, ie.
comprehensive information is available on a wide scale beforehand of the intervention. As large scale
sporting events of the past have shown, such quasi-permanent transformation (closures for vehicular traffic)
evoke the transport system’s flexibility in reacting on such events: mobility patterns adapt.
Because this paper claims to provide a synopsis of evidence and examples of changes in behaviour due to
changed structures, it culminates with four sets of examples following these main lines of thought:
(1) Example: Active modes friendly settlement structures
(2) Example: Commuting infrastructure
(3) Example: Parking place pricing and and locations
(4) Example: Rredifining road space usage
We conclude with highlighting the behavioural flexibility of mobility, the impacts of such behavioural
changes from the urban dwellers’ perspectives and the importance of making such changes conceivable
beforehand
