The Bumpy Road toward Low-Energy Urban Mobility: Case Studies from Two UK Cities

Abstract

Cities are increasingly seen as the places where innovations that can trigger a sociotechnical transition toward urban mobility are emerging and maturing. Processes such as peak car, rail renaissance and cycling boom manifest themselves particularly in cities, and success stories of cities experimenting with specific types of low-energy mobility abound in the academic literature. Nonetheless, innovation is known to be a precarious process requiring favorable circumstances. Using document analysis and in-depth interviews, this study examines the nature of low-energy innovation in the everyday mobility of people in two UK cities with favorable conditions for a transition away from fossil fuels-Brighton and Oxford. It shows that clear differences exist between the two cities in the sorts of innovation that emerge and diffuse as a result of path dependencies, local politics, and financial support from supra-local governments and agencies. While low-energy mobility currently has substantial momentum in both cities, the majority of low-carbon innovations in urban mobility are incremental rather than radical in nature, and their future is often imbued with uncertainty. The autonomy of small-and medium-sized cities as agents in bringing about transformational change toward low-energy urban mobility should not be overestimated.

The Sustainability of Shared Mobility in London: The Dilemma for Governance

“…The future of shared mobility is, therefore, not only a matter of collaboration between institutions, but of having a clear vision about what constitutes the most efficient and sustainable transport mix for a city that best serves its people. This extends the current literature that demonstrated the role of political support on the success of the schemes (e.g., [48]) by pointing to the importance of the synergies and conflicts between the key actors' perceptions and, eventually, the shared vision of a sustainable transport strategy.…”

Unpacking the Formation of Favourable Environments for Urban Experimentation: The Case of the Bristol Energy Scene

“…Instead of assuming an undisputed set of shared rules as the outcomes of experimentation, we should address how distinct framings and visions are made, mobilised and contested [47,57,58]. Local stakeholders often experiment with multiple socio-technological pathways and have to negotiate a variety of interests and visions [6,57,59]. Urban experiments are initiated by a variety of actors, often overlap, compete for resources and open up opportunities for political action, and thus do not conform to assumptions implicit in SNM' approaches [3].…”

“…Urban experiments are being mobilised not merely to study the city but also to probe diverse urban futures, harness innovations to transform the city and its various sociotechnical systems [4][5][6] and contribute to developing the capacities required for transformation [7]. Proponents of urban experimentation have devised and implemented a variety of experimental spaces, such as urban living laboratories, transition arenas, platforms, and experimental districts, which are the object of a thriving body of literature [8][9][10][11][12].…”

Reconfiguring Urban Sustainability Transitions, Analysing Multiplicity

“…These approaches have been subject to-and continue to require-theoretical and conceptual development and empirical exploration. This paper contributes to this endeavour and to debates in this area in this journal [1,2].…”

“…We do this to be able to begin examining how multiple, selective sustainable mobility innovations (e.g., battery electric vehicles, urban cycling hire schemes, inter-modal ticketing etc.) are experimented with and variably reconfigured in cities [2]. Second, it is necessary to understand the governance and institutional arrangements that shape reconfiguration; but it is important not to fall in to the trap of reducing and flattening these governance arrangements to the level of the city [10].…”