Search

The scale of the decarbonisation challenge and the short timeframes over which action is required demand urgent action. This paper is set within the surface transport sector, now the largest sector of emissions with the slowest pace of change in many advanced liberal economies. It focuses on the strategies and actions of local government which is recognised to be a central player in catalysing change. Our evidence is derived from the actions of two UK local areas which claim to be at the forefront of the decarbonisation challenge.The paper focuses on the role of funding and financial mechanisms in addressing the climate crisis. In the face of an established pattern of austerity and hollowing out of local government we explore how deep transformation is being envisaged. We find a recursive set of issues which derive from a dependence on funding from outwith. The lack of funding means that it is not so much that strategies cannot be funded but that the funding available is the core of the strategy. This means that the nature of the funds, such as the requirement for experimentation, innovation or private sector leverage, defines direction. In turn, and to maintain success in attracting funds there is an emphasis on presenting ‘premium spaces of ambition’ with little evidence of attention to broader systemic change. This duality is openly recognised. This paper advances a wider point that greater emphasis should be paid to the ‘financialisation’ of climate policy and the reality rather than the rhetoric of change.

Operations of Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs or drones) are expanding, leading to competition for airspace with other users such as the General Aviation (GA) community, i.e., sports and leisure airspace users, particularly in uncontrolled airspace. As a result, there is an increasingly urgent need for a shared airspace resolution, whereby drones become integrated harmoniously in unsegregated operations with crewed aircraft, providing equitable airspace access for all. The purpose of the study was to engage with the GA community and elicit concerns and issues regarding the shared airspace concept as an initial step in the co-development of the future form of airspace. The method used was an online, interactive workshop with participants (n~80) recruited from the GA community in the United Kingdom (UK). Data captured (verbal and written) were analysed qualitatively using thematic analysis, producing findings that summarised the issues identified on a range of different topics, grouped together under three over-arching themes: (1) operational environment; (2) technical and regulatory environment; and (3) equity and wider society. Almost a quarter of participants’ comments (27%) were related to the opinion that shared airspace would only be possible if aircraft were fitted with Detect-And-Avoid (DAA) systems for de-confliction, based on onboard Electronic Conspicuity (EC) devices. Findings suggested that airspace management policies that establish equitable regulatory and technology environments regarding shared airspace are needed, and that those policies should be inclusive, having as a key aim the involvement of the GA community (and all other stakeholders) in the development process. The study represents a first step in the involvement of the wider aviation community in the co-design of shared airspace to include drones.

In recent years, global studies have attempted to understand the contribution that energy demand reduction could make to climate mitigation efforts. Here we develop a bottom-up, whole-system framework that comprehensively estimates the potential for energy demand reduction at a country level. Replicable for other countries, our framework is applied to the case of the United Kingdom where we find that reductions in energy demand of 52% by 2050 compared with 2020 levels are possible without compromising on citizens’ quality of life. This translates to annual energy demands of 40 GJ per person, compared with the current Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 116 GJ and the global average of 55 GJ. Our findings show that energy demand reduction can reduce reliance on high-risk carbon dioxide removal technologies, has moderate investment requirements and allows space for ratcheting up climate ambition. We conclude that national climate policy should increasingly develop and integrate energy demand reduction measures.

This paper responds to calls for greater empirical investigation of the interrelationships between depoliticisation and repoliticisation processes. It does so by applying the ‘three faces’ (governmental, societal and discursive) organising perspective to a longitudinal analysis of transport policy in the UK. This case is important because acceptance of the current dominant policy solution – infrastructure spending – appears to have come full circle over a 30-year period. The research finds that today’s focus on infrastructure is enabled through intersecting and reinforcing depoliticisation processes, supporting the ‘three faces’ perspective. However, the paper also highlights the need for greater recognition of the state as a meta-governor of depoliticisation and the need for clarity on which aspect of a policy solution or problem (or the connections between them) is being depoliticised and repoliticised to better elucidate politicisation processes.

Policy makers are keen to understand public and stakeholder concerns in relation to the greater deployment of drones within transport systems and studies have sought to quantify public acceptance of drones with common themes including worries relating to privacy and safety and a lack of engagement with the technology amongst some demographic groups. This paper critically examines the research on public acceptance of drones finding the conflation of a diverse range of drone applications has led to ambiguity in the prevailing concerns and that the absence of clear parameters for drone use in local transport environments limits scope to develop informed opinion. We find that studies which build familiarity and understanding of practical drone use demonstrate the potential for more positive and informed outcomes than do more generic surveys on attitudes. The paper raises questions about the role of public acceptance research and its use in policy and calls for studies that build understanding of drones within transport environments so that stakeholders can engage in more informed debates to shape future transport provision.

This paper explores how three cities (Seattle, Greater Manchester and Stockholm) have approached the governance of smart mobility services in the early stages of their introduction. The research finds that cities have limited steering capacity, and when they do steer services this is done on the assumption that smart mobility will deliver wider social, environmental and economic good. While broad-ranging benefits are yet to materialise to any identifiable degree, the potential for smart mobility to tackle some of the challenges of automobility undoubtedly remains, and the new services are acting to change mobility patterns in cities, at least for some people. We focus on the need to develop clear accountability arrangements between the public and the private sector, which we see as a necessary element of a collaborative governance approach that allows both sides to identify shared goals and maximise their achievement. However, we stress that developing a collaborative approach requires cities to govern with intent, which means that services need to be deployed or permitted with clear objectives and an understanding of their anticipated impacts.

Energy Demand Reduction (EDR) refers to lowering the amount of energy required to provide energy services across mobility, shelter, nutrition or the production of goods and services, among others, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years, global studies have attempted to understand the contribution EDR could make to climate mitigation efforts. Whilst these studies are important to build a global picture, climate targets and policy are necessarily devised at the national level. To address this disconnect, we develop a bottom-up, whole system framework that comprehensively estimates the potential for energy demand reduction at a country level. Replicable for other countries, our framework is applied to the case of the UK where we find that reductions in energy demand of 52% by 2050 compared with 2020 levels are possible without compromising on citizens’ quality of life. This translates to annual energy demands of 40GJ per person, compared to the current OECD average of 55GJ. Our findings show that EDR can reduce reliance on high-risk carbon dioxide removals, moderate investment requirements, and allow space for ratcheting up climate ambition. We conclude that national climate policy should increasingly develop and integrate EDR measures to both articulate national ambition and feeding into international pledges through Nationally Determined Contributions.

There has been widespread interest in the potential for the significant behavioural and policy adaptations rendered necessary by Coronavirus to act as a catalyst for radical longer term policy change in transport. However, this body of work to date has been limited in its consideration of how such policy change might be brought about. Translating the lessons from the Coronavirus response to other ongoing strategic challenges such as decarbonisation requires analysis of what the pandemic has revealed about processes of policy formulation and how institutions responsible for policy implementation actually work. This paper explores the extent to which rapid policy change has actually been possible in the transport sector in England and Scotland during the pandemic, and key examples of how such change has been both achieved and blocked. Two rounds of interviews with senior stakeholders from across the transport sector were undertaken in June and November 2020 to inform the analysis. We find that the pandemic has accelerated some policy commitments that were already planned, but at a time of huge stress on the whole of government and its partner delivery organisations, the potential to deliver radical policy adaptation was limited. However, Coronavirus is recognised as being a potentially path-changing disruption to existing trajectories in terms of the adaptations to business practices, industry structures, ways of working and the public finances. Paradoxically, whilst recognising these uncertainties, decision-makers are yet to deviate from pre-pandemic planning assumptions and policy plans and this risks missing the opportunities to steer how those changes unfold.

The Paris Agreement requires radical action across all policy sectors and at all scales of government. This paper argues that without a clear framework for sectoral budget setting which takes account of interactions across spatial scales, incoherent and inadequate policy responses will result. Using a case study of the transport sector within the UK, which has committed to a zero carbon pathway in law, we look at three key elements which have to be considered in setting out a new framework: budget coherence, accounting coherence and policy coherence. Using top-down and bottom-up examples emerging from practices today in the UK, we demonstrate that there are no ‘optimal’ solutions but a set of choices, all of which appear to be better than the patchwork of approaches emerging in the absence of a framework. A multi-scalar approach is essential as transport crosses spatial boundaries and the policy system places different levers at different scales. Transparency will be beneficial for honesty with the public and the difficult politics this rapid transition necessitates. It will also mitigate against blame shifting across governments between and within scales and the resultant inaction which characterized the previous decade of supposed ‘climate action’.

Since the 1960s, development of the transport system has been framed by the notion of forecasting future demand. Yet the past decade or more appears to signal some significant changes to the role of travel in society which are having a material impact on how much people travel (and may travel in the future). Coupled with the potential for major technological changes and a range of climate adaptation scenarios, the future of mobility presents today’s decision making on transport strategy and investment with a broader set of uncertainties than has previously been considered. This paper examines current mainstream practice for incorporating uncertainty into decision-making, through an illustrative case study of the highly codified approaches of the Department for Transport in England. It deconstructs the issue by first focussing on different ways in which there is an opening out or acceptance of new uncertainties and how this creates a (wider) set of potential futures. It then turns to consider how this set of futures is used, or not, in decision-making, i.e. the process of closing down uncertainty to arrive at or at least inform a decision. We demonstrate that, because the range of uncertainties has broadened in scope and scale, the traditional technocratic approach of closing down decisions through sensitivity testing is at odds with the greater breadth now being called for at the opening out stage. We conclude that transport decision-making would benefit from a rebalancing of technical depth with analytical breadth. The paper outlines a plausible new approach to opening out and closing down that is starting to be applied in practice. This approach must be accompanied by an opening up of the processes by which technical advice for decisions are reached and how uncertainties are understood and negotiated.

First paragraph: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought previously unimaginable change to the level of mobility in the economy almost overnight. People who have never before worked from home before were obliged to do so immediately, and business travel stopped almost completely in a matter of weeks. After the slow restart of many transport services, attention turned to understanding the implications of the unprecedented uncertainties about future travel demand exposed by the pandemic. Most obvious is the issue of how long some form of social distancing restrictions and/or other mitigations such as the wearing of face coverings will have to remain in place (and potentially be reintroduced in future) in advance of a reliable vaccine and/or therapeutics becoming available. These restrictions have profound effects on the capacity of many transport services, wider travel demand, and in turn the financial viability of the transport system as we know it. From these critical issues emerge subsequent questions including what a significant loss of confidence in the safety of public transport means for usage far into the future, whether the business model underpinning low-cost aviation can survive, and what the experience of working remotely en masse means for the future of commuting and the structure of our cities.

With governments around the world committed to radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and transport-related mobilities making up a significant proportion of current carbon emissions, questions of how to change mobility systems have become a pressing concern. Yet the urgency of this challenge cannot be met with more of the same – particularly in terms of narrow discussions of behaviour change that fail to draw upon the wealth of relevant social scientific research. New methods of collaborating and bringing together communities – whether policymakers, academics, or publics – will also be key. Greg Marsden brings a particularly interesting set of perspectives to the question of what future travel demand might look like, and how we can change practices to get there. While currently a Professor of Transport Governance at Leeds University, Greg has spent significant periods working with policymakers – both within Transport for London and supporting the UK Parliament Transport Select Committee, which scrutinises the UK Department for Transport’s (DfT) spending and policies. Our conversation looks at how spaces can be fostered for new ways of thinking, communicating and collaborating to address the challenge of rapidly decarbonising transport systems. Though largely focused upon the UK, the conversation highlights issues related to policy engagement, theory and evidence, and understandings of sharing that will have much wider relevance.

Theorising the relationships between information communication technology (ICT), travel and work continues to preoccupy researchers interested in multinational corporations (MNCs). One motivation is the desire to understand ways of reducing demand for and the negative consequences of business travel. Existing studies offer, however, little in the way of theoretical explanation of why situations that require travel arise in the first instance and how they might be avoided. To address this shortcoming, this paper analyses two case study engineering consultancy MNCs to develop a novel sociomaterial perspective on the role of travel and ICTs. It introduces the concept of the synthetic work mobility situation which highlights the way ICT and travel exert agency that constitutes ways of working and the organisational form of MNCs. The concept also recasts questions about ways of reducing demand for travel as questions about ways of reconstituting the sociomaterial organisation of the MNC.

Future travel demand has always been difficult to estimate. Recent trends of a slow down or stagnation in traffic growth combined with substantial demographic, economic, and technological shifts further complicate that task. This poses a significant planning challenge given that decision-making is often based on the benefits of infrastructure investments which accrue over periods as long as 60 years. In contrast to the changing ideas around what mobility in the future will look like and the types of demand it may need to service, the practice of forecasting future travel demand remains largely unchanged as do the decision-making processes which flow from this. Alternative approaches to thinking about futures such as scenario planning exist but have had more limited deployment in the transport sector. This paper explores the institutional issues surrounding the purpose, practice and barriers to changing the approaches of forecasting and decision-making through an exploration of the state of practice in the UK drawing on interviews with 23 practitioners. Drawing on Hall’s work on policy change, the research finds that there is a strong policy paradigm built around the relationships between transport investment and traffic growth. This has strengthened since the recession with an increased focus on the relationship between transport and job creation. The forecasting approaches in use today are an important part of a complex decision-making apparatus reflective of specialized policy arenas like transport. Challenges in acknowledging, representing and communicating uncertainty are identified leaving a growing tension between planning visions and planning practice. We conclude by reflecting on events which may stimulate a broader reframing of how we plan for transport futures whilst embracing key uncertainties.

This paper critiques the state of the art approaches to studying transportation policy. It does so through analysing 100 papers sampled from the two leading policy journals in the transportation literature. On applying two different frameworks for understanding policy, the review finds that only 13% of papers consider specific aspects of the policy cycle, that 60% focus on ‘tools’ for policy, and that two-thirds of papers did not engage with real-world policy examples or policy makers and focussed on quantitative analysis alone. We argue that these findings highlight the persistence of the technical-rational model within the transportation literature. This model, and the numerous traditions and disciplines that have fed into it have an important role to play in developing the transportation evidence base. However, we argue there are important questions of governance; such as context, power, resources and legitimacy, that are largely being ignored in the literature as it stands. The substantial lack of engagement with governance issues and debates means that as a field we are artificially, but more importantly, disproportionately generating a science of applied policy making which is unlikely to be utilised because of the distance between it and the realities on the ground. The paper identifies analytical approaches deployed readily in other fields that could be used to address some of the key deficiencies.

Resilience is the ability of a system to adapt, persist, and transform as a reaction to threats, which may be external or internal to the system, while vulnerability is the state of being susceptible to harm from exposure to stresses associated with environmental and social change and from the inability to adapt. Based on a study of the threats that can affect urban mobility, we identified a gap regarding the analysis of the levels of resilience and vulnerability in the face of subsidy threats that can severely affect developing countries. This article measures the level of resilience and vulnerability due to the absence of public transport fare subsidies. For this purpose, we developed an approach based on fuzzy logic and applied it in 33 administrative regions (ARs) of the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We obtained four matrices of the levels of vulnerability and resilience of each of the regions as an origin and destination. The results show that areas nearest to the downtown region and those with high-capacity transportation available (commuter train and/or subway, systems with many transfer points) are more resilient, while a high level of vulnerability is associated with low income, negative socioeconomic indicators, and the predominance of road transportation to reach jobs. The contribution of this paper is the method applied to analyse the levels of vulnerability and resilience of public transport, which includes a threat that can cause a rupture that impacts routines and job accessibility in a region.

The continued failure to put transport on a robust low carbon transition pathway calls for new approaches in policy and research. In studies of transport systems and patterns of mobility, established approaches to data collection, analysis and subsequent policy design have focused on capturing ‘typical’ conditions rather than identifying the potential for substantive change. This focus on the apparent aggregate stability of the transport regime has reproduced a belief in policy circles that our current travel patterns are largely fixed and therefore very difficult to alter, which in turn has resulted in an over reliance on implausible assumptions about the carbon reductions that can be achieved through technological improvements such as low emission vehicles. This paper argues that there is potentially much greater adaptive capacity in the mobility system than currently allowed for. It illustrates this potential through the investigation of actual adaptations made during a set of specific ‘disruptive’ events. The paper concludes by suggesting that we can go further in reducing the demand for travel if we broaden the scope of intervention to take a wider view of when and how mobility matters to participation in activities across the population. This research pre-dates the Covid-19 pandemic but should help inform the policy responses in a period where a step-wise return to a ‘new normal’ is enacted.

This chapter reviews the implications of growing travel demand and the increased risk of climatic events damaging infrastructure on transport policy. Whilst the policy narrative remains one of tackling congestion and removing pinch points, growing travel demand will outstrip investments, placing greater day-to-day pressure on networks and increasing susceptibility to breakdowns and minor demand variations. Less frequent and higher impact climate related events will become more commonplace but will struggle to command resources for anticipatory action relative to the day-to-day pressures, particularly in areas with lower congestion and fewer alternatives. By necessity travellers and businesses will develop their own adaptive strategies to both reduce exposure and create alternatives to disruptive events. Policies which promote greater localism, multi-modalism, flexibility in activity locations (both physically and virtually) should become more highly valued as antidotes to both the regular and irregular patterns of disruption we should anticipate.

Egalitarian thought has a long tradition in Chinese history. Synthesized with the socialist ideology, it was practiced nationwide in the first decades of Communist China. Alongside the well-reported quality of life improvements that the recent economic liberalisation reforms have brought about, Chinese people are experiencing an increasingly serious polarization between the rich and the poor. Consequently, an egalitarian tendency has represented itself within contemporary policy and popular discourse. This paper aims to explore how egalitarian thought has influenced public awareness of social inequities by using the case of public attitudes towards the Beijing congestion charge, which is currently still at its planning stage. Nine focus groups, with a total of 73 participants, were undertaken with residents living in different areas of the city. Results show that the perceptions of social inequities are significantly different between low-income and high-income people. Due to egalitarian thinking, low-income people expect the privileges of the rich to be abolished, however, they do not pay much attention to a wider redistribution of wealth and other social resources. By contrast, richer people tend to deny to a wider population the privileges they themselves received, and, to some extent, they are reluctant to accept policy outcomes that may favour those who are in lower social positions. The resentment against the rich, as another by-product of egalitarianism, considerably exaggerates actual social inequalities, thereby intensifying the feelings of being unequally treated.

This paper presents results from a longitudinal study of the travel behaviour change associated with the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games (the ‘Games’). The research examines commuter travel behaviour through a panel approach enabling an understanding of individual behaviour across three waves (before, during and after), with the study utilising unique access to a Transport for London panel study (n = 1132). The findings indicate that a substantial amount of change occurred during the Games (54% made at least one change), with reducing or re-timing journeys being the most likely adaptations made. A key objective of this work was to advance the discussion about the theoretical constructs that are most applicable in the study of behaviour change associated with disruptive events, which was done through the application and critical evaluation of the Transtheoretical Model. The insights from the stages of change element of the model were relatively limited but the analysis shows significant differences in the underlying factors explaining change according to the type of change made (reduce, re-time, re-mode and re-route). Whilst the long-term behavioural impacts of events like the Games appear small, the study has uncovered a need to consider these behavioural choices as distinct rather than under the collective term of “travel behaviour change”, as is current practice.

The paper addresses the important question of how institutional structures matter to the delivery of climate change policy for urban transport. It examines the strategic goals, policy tools in operation and initial progress towards carbon emission reduction in seven cities across the UK and Germany where different institutional structures exist. The UK has the presence of a strong national carbon target and strong hierarchical national–local government relationships whilst Germany has a more integrated system of local transport provision in a context where local and regional government is stronger. Our findings show that the carbon agenda has made very little difference to what is happening on the ground in the cities. Across all sites, progress is being made but largely through technological improvements which are being almost completely offset by population growth. Even in the more integrated city environments there has not be an additional stimulus to manage the demand for travel. Contrary to previous research therefore, we cannot conclude that institutional structures are paramount in delivering effective carbon reduction policies. The institutional structures in the UK and in Germany are not perfectly aligned to carbon management but, given the cross policy impacts of most transport interventions, this is perhaps inevitable. We can clearly conclude however that “better” structures are not sufficient to achieve the implementation of more effective carbon policies. Whilst institutional structures must matter, it is the broader governance environment and the resources and politics involved in transport policy that currently seem to dominate the importance of the carbon agenda and implementation paths that emerge.

The curb is the critical site of interaction between people and vehicles, and between movement and place. Despite decades of debate about how to manage the allocation of space and time to different users, the curb remains a highly contested space which the state finds hard to govern effectively. New pressures on the curb are already apparent: recent changes to the mobility system have resulted in an intensification of use with growth in home delivery and servicing traffic and greater use by ridehailing services. Simultaneously there is a diversification of demands with requirements for bespoke access for new mobility services and innovations such as car and bike share and electric charge points. Looking ahead, a range of actors are developing visions of a shift from individual ownership of cars to shared but intensively used highly automated fleets. The balance of parking, pick up and drop off and movement could be radically different in future. Drawing on literature on the literature on boundary objects, this paper explores the way in which different user groups seek to ensure their own interests are represented at the curb. Through examination of the changing nature of streets in-use, the paper reveals the on-going processes of reallocating and appropriation of curb space. The formal and informal codification of curb use stimulated by interests operating at national and international scales marginalises some user groups and works against place-based planning approaches. The paper makes the case for public policy to reassert itself in the curb debate to avoid a significant decline in conditions and to seek to balance commercial and social interests.

This article analyses the transport policy record of the 2010–2015 Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition and 2015–2016 Conservative majority UK governments. We argue that the style of policy making under these administrations departed significantly from that of previous decades, which had been characterised by the ascendancy of specific technical disciplines and decision-making norms about how transport planning should be carried out. Our key contention is that despite abandoning the idea of a single, overall narrative for transport policy, these governments (perhaps unwittingly) gave new life to broader debates about what transport investment is actually for and how investment decisions should be made. We interpret this as a shift away from the longstanding idea of a ‘deliberate’ strategy of intervention to a more ‘emergent’ approach, which raises important new questions about the future of transport policy both in terms of the objectives it seeks to realise and the relative influence of professional/technical and political actors in the policy process.

The notion of ‘fuel poverty’, referring to affordable warmth, underpins established research and policy agendas in the UK and has been extremely influential worldwide. In this context, British researchers, official policymaking bodies and NGOs have put forward the notion of ‘transport poverty’, building on an implicit analogy between (recognised) fuel poverty and (neglected) transport affordability issues. However, the conceptual similarities and differences between ’fuel’ and ’transport’ poverty remain largely unaddressed in the UK. This paper systematically compares and contrasts the two concepts, examining critically the assumption of a simple equivalence between them. We illustrate similarities and differences under four headings: (i) negative consequences of lack of warmth and lack of access; (ii) drivers of fuel and transport poverty; (iii) definition and measurement; (iv) policy interventions. Our review suggests that there are important conceptual and practical differences between transport and domestic energy consumption, with crucial consequences for how affordability problems amongst households are to be conceptualised and addressed. In a context where transport and energy exhibit two parallel policy worlds, the analysis in the paper and these conclusions reinforce how and why these differences matter. As we embark on an ever closer union between our domestic energy and transport energy systems the importance of these contradictions will become increasingly evident and problematic. This work contributes to the long-term debate about how best to manage these issues in a radical energy transition that properly pays attention to issues of equity and affordability.

Bus Rapid Transit systems exist in over 206 cities and 45 countries around the world. They are seen to provide a much lower cost option of mass mobility than fixed rail or underground systems which developing countries struggle to afford. Whilst BRT systems have undoubtedly been seen to be successful from a transport system perspective, they are more than a transport system innovation. They are often introduced to replace what is seen to be a failing, unsafe and poorly regulated informal transit system. This paper therefore focuses on the process of BRT introduction as a governance reform. The paper draws on African experience where adoption of BRT has been slow relative to South America and South East Asia. Using an in-depth analysis of the introduction of a new system in Ghana and data on levels of governance maturity across the African sub-continent, the paper finds that to understand BRT implementation requires an understanding of how the incumbent transport regime could and will be able to be reorganized. The success of BRT systems that result will depend at least as much on how the reforms are achieved as it will on the usual design concerns which typically occupy transport planners.

As with previous transport innovations, the transition to ‘smart mobility’ will occur in different ways and at different speeds in different places. Innovations such as Uber and trials of autonomous vehicles are already being welcomed in some places but resisted in others or left to the market. While the technologies may have the potential to be deployed globally, how this happens is, in part, down to the institutional settings and approach to governance amongst all of the actors (public and private) involved. Deciding who should act, how, when and at what spatial scale is, we argue, critical in setting the conditions in which new mobility systems can flourish but in a way which promotes the goals of local, state and federal governments and meets the needs of citizens as well as the industries that promote them. This chapter reports on an international scenarios exercise conducted in 2017 across nine countries. Key dimensions of uncertainty were the degree of governmental involvement in steering policy and the degree of social desirability for smart mobility innovation. Reflecting on the period up to 2035, the scenarios considered the implications for smart mobility transitions by asking which innovations are more likely to flourish and which falter. Strong state involvement is reported as a necessary condition for the most integrated and sustainable visions of smart mobility. Other pathways were suggested to favour some innovations over others but typically offer a smaller market and more atomized and less sustainable set of mobility options.

This chapter considers the book as a whole to draw out the key findings and link these to broader themes. In it we suggest that as we are in the relatively early stages of smart mobility adoption, there exists a key window of opportunity to think about to what end, and how, the transition can be steered. If this window is not seized, there is a heightened risk that governments will always be responding to, rather than shaping, events. Four key themes emerge from our reflection. First, while the current system is not equitable, there is a need to be cognizant of who the new winners and losers will be in the next transition. It is far from clear that commercial business models always align with notions of social provision. Second, while the early stages of the transition appear to be marked by technological optimism, reinforced by government industrial strategies, it seems clear that without politics with a capital P, the opportunity to engage the public and educate decision-makers will be missed. This leads to our third point: that a lack of pro-active state engagement in the early stages of these innovations will undermine the institutional capacity to engage later on in the transition. Without governmental steering, the transition risks representing what we are given rather than what we want or need it to be. Finally, we highlight the importance of context to how the transition will unfold, with some countries or cities already at arm’s length from transport provision while others are more hands-on. The chapter concludes with our reflections on what actions governments could take now to prepare better for the transition and on what the volume of work says for future research needs. While greatly enthused and rewarded by the debates we have had in assembling this book, we see these as the starting point for future agendas and very much open to contestation. We, therefore, hope this book acts to advance the study of the governance of smart mobility and to elevate its status relative to the significant body of work underway on the technologies themselves.