Herman van den Bosch

If autonomous cars can transport us affordably, do we no longer want to own our own car? Are we switching en masse from public transport, do we leave our bikes unused, or do we walk less? Do we drive alone, or do we share the car with other passengers? Will autonomous cars share he road with other traffic, including cycling? Are we going to use a car more often and longer and how many cars drive empty waiting for a customer?
Of course, no scientific study can answer all these questions yet. Nevertheless, research offers some insight.  

Ride-hailing

 
First, what do we know about the influence of ride-hailing? That is calling a taxi from Uber or Lyft and a handful of other companies with an app. Juniper Research expects that the use of this service, which already has a global turnover of $ 147 billion, will increase fivefold in the coming five years, regardless of whether the taxis involved are 'self -driving' or not. Clear is that most users seem not to appreciate the presence of fellow passengers: the number of travelers that share journeys is only 13%.
Research in seven major American cities shows that 49 to 61 percent of all Uber and Lyft-taxi rides would have been made by walking, cycling, taking public transport or not at all. These journeys only replace car use to a limited extent. As a result, the number of train passengers has already fallen by 1.3% per year and that by bus by 1.7%. At the same time, congestion has increased.
A publication in the Journal Transport policy showed that travelers travel twice as many kilometers in every American region that they would have done if Uber and Lyft did not exist. It also turned out that taxis drive empty 50% of the time while they are waiting for or on their way to a new customer. Another study found that many Uber and Lyft customers who once used public transport buy a car for themselves.  

The effect of 'self -driving' cars

 
The number of studies after the (possible) effect of the arrival of 'self -driving' cars is increasing rapidly. Research by the Boston Consultancy Group showed that 30% of all journeys will take place in a 'self -driving' car as soon as they are available. A considerable number of former public transport users says they will change. Despite the price advantage, the respondents will make little use of the option to share a car with other passengers, but it is known that attitudes and related behavior often differ. Nevertheless, this data has been used to calculate that there will be more cars on the road in large parts of the cities, resulting in more traffic jams.
Semi-experimental research also showed that the ability to travel with a 'self-driving' car results in an increase in the number of kilometers covered by around 60%. Unless autonomous cars drive electrically, this will also have significant negative consequences for the environment.
The Robottaxis in suburbs had a different effect: here travelers would leave their car at home more often and use the taxi to be transported to a station.  

See robot taxis and public transport in combination

 
Despite all the reservations that must be made with this type of research, all results indicate a significant increase in the use of taxis, which will be at the expense of public transport and will result in more traffic jams in urbanized areas. This growth can be reversed by making shared transport more attractive. Especially on the routes to and from train, metro, and bus stations. Only in that case, will there be an ideal transport model for the future: large-scale and fast public transport on the main roads and small-scale public transport for the last kilometers and in rural areas.

In a couple of days my new ebook will be available. It is a collection of the 25 recommendations for better streets, neighbourhoods and city's that have been published at this spot during the last months

How far are we from large-scale use of 'self-driving' cars. This and subsequent posts deal with this question. In answering it, I will focus on the potential contribution of self-driving cars to the quality of the living environment. Nowadays, the development of self-driving cars has faded a bit into the background. There is a reason for that, and I will get to it later.

When 'self-driving' vehicles first emerged, many believed that a new urban utopia was within reach. This would save millions of lives and contribute to a more livable environment. However, it is only one of the scenarios. Dan Sperling writes: The dream scenario could yield enormous public and private benefits, including greater freedom of choice, greater affordability and accessibility, and healthier, more livable cities, along with reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The nightmare scenario could lead to even further urban expansion, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and unhealthy cities and people.

The dream scenario

Do you have to go somewhere? On request, a self-driving car will stop in front of your door within a few minutes to make the desired journey. After you have been safely dropped, the car drives to the next destination. Until a few years ago, companies like Uber and Lync were looking forward to the day when they could fire all their drivers and offer their services with 'self-driving' cars. Naturally at lower prices, which would multiply their customer base. In this scenario, no one wants to have their own car anymore, right? The number of road casualties also will reduce drastically in this scenario. Autonomous cars do not drink, do not drive too fast, never get tired and anticipate unexpected actions of other road users much faster than human drivers. At least that was the argument.
Quick calculations by the proponents of this scenario show that the number of cars needed for passenger transport could decrease by a factor of 20 (!).

The nightmare scenario

This calculation was perhaps a little too fast: Its validity depends on a perfect distribution of all trips over day and night and over the urban space and on the presence of other road users. What you don't want to think about is that outside rush hour, most of the fleet of 'self-driving' cars is stationary somewhere or driving aimlessly in circles. Moreover, the dream scenario assumes that no one switches from public transport, walking, or cycling. Instead of improving cities, these types of cars have the potential to ruin them even further, according to Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar. Taxis, especially those from Uber and Lyft, are already contributing to traffic jams in major American cities and to the erosion of public transportation
 
Both views are based on suspicions, expectations, and extrapolations and a dose of 'wishful thinking' too. In the next posts, I will discuss results of scientific research that allows to form a more informed opinion about both scenarios.

Dit you already visit my new website 'Expeditie Muziek'. This week an exploration of world-class singer-songwriter 'Shania Twain

Last months, 25 facets of the quality of streets, neighbourhoods and cities have been discussed on this spot. But what are the next steps? How urgent is improvement of the quality of the living environment actually?
 
I fear that the quality of the living environment has been going in the wrong direction for at least half a century and in two respects:  

Country of cars

 
Firstly, the car came to play an increasingly dominant role during that period. Step by step, choices have been made that make traveling by car easier and this has had far-reaching consequences for nature, air quality, climate and environmental planning. Our living environment is designed based on the use of the car instead of what is ecologically possible and desirable for our health. At the same time, public transport is rarely a good alternative, in terms of travel time, costs and punctuality.  

Country of cows

 
A second structural damage to the quality of the living environment comes from the agro-industry. About one half of the surface of our country is intended for cows. These cows make an important contribution to greenhouse gas emissions that further destroy the remaining nature. But this form of land use also leads to inefficient food production, which also results in health problems.
 
In the next months I will explore two themes: 'Are 'self-driving' cars advantageous ' and the 'The merits of the 15-minute city'. These themes are case studies regarding the quality of the living environment and in both cases mobility and nature  play an important role.
 
After the publication of these two miniseries with zeven posts each, the frequency of my posts on this site will decrease, although I will continue to draw attention on the fundamental choices we have to make regarding environmental issues.
 
Meanwhile, I started a new blog 'Expeditie Muziek' (in Dutch). I have always neglected my love for music and I am making up for it now. I think readers who love music will enjoy my posts in which pieces of text alternate with YouTube videos as much as I enjoy writing them.
 
Curious? Visit the link below

This is the 25st and last episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. Its topic is happiness. Happiness is both a building block for the quality of the living environment and at the same time it is shaped by it. This is what this post is about.

A municipality with residents who all feel happy. Who wouldn't want that? It is not an easily attainable goal, also because there are still many unanswered questions about the circumstances that make people happy.
In its broadest sense, happiness refers to people's satisfaction with their lives in general over an extended period.

Can happiness be developed?

Only in a limited way. According to Ruut Veenhoven, the Dutch 'happiness professor', half of happiness is determined by character traits, such as honesty, openness, optimism, forgiveness, and inquisiveness. Five societal characteristics determine the rest. These are a certain level of material wealth, social relations, health, living conditions and self-determination. In between, culture plays a role.

Happy and unhappy cities

What about the happiness of cities, for what it's worth? The happiness of cities depends on the self-declared degree of happiness (of a sample) of its inhabitants. Scandinavian cities dominate the top 10: Helsinki (Finland) and Aarhus (Denmark) rank first and second, Copenhagen (Denmark), Bergen (Norway) and Oslo (Norway) rank fifth, sixth and seventh. Stockholm (Sweden) is ninth. Amsterdam follows in 11th place. Two of the top ten cities are in Australia and New Zealand: Wellington, New Zealand's capital, ranks third and Brisbane (Australia) ranks tenth. The only top ten cities not in the Scandinavia or Australia and New Zealand are Zurich (Switzerland) and Tel Aviv (Israel).
The bottom five cities are mainly cities that have been strongly marked by wars and conflicts: Kabul in Afghanistan, Sanaa in Yemen, Gaza in Palestine, and Juba in South Sudan. Delhi (India) ranks the fifth place from the bottom, because of the perceived very poor quality of life.
Independently from the place where they live, people who are happy are characterized by longevity, better health, more social relationships, and active citizenship.

Can cities improve their inhabitants’ happiness?

A happiness-based policy provides 'resources' in the first place, such as a livable income, affordable housing, health care and, in addition, creates circumstances ('conversion factors') to support people in making optimal use these resources. For instance, through social work, opportunities for participation, and invitation to festivities, such as street fairs, car-free days and music in the street.
Municipalities such as Schagen and Roerdalen consider the happiness of their citizens as the first goal for their policy. Cities abroad that intend the same are Bristol, Seoul, and Vilnius, among others. Nevertheless, Nancy Peters (project leader happiness of the municipality of Schagen) remarks: <em>We cannot make people happy. But the government offers a frame that helps people to become happy</em>.
Together with the Erasmus Happiness Economics Research Organization (EHERO), the municipality of Schagen has agreed on 12 spearheads: meaningful work, meaningful contact, participation in social life, connection with the neighbourhood, social safety net, trust in the municipality, pride in the place where people live, satisfaction with relationships, sports facilities, quality of public space, neighborhood-oriented cooperation and the relationship between citizens and community.

The importance of participation

In the previous blogposts, many topics have been discussed that easily fit in one of these spearheads. In his book <em>The Architecture of Happiness</em>, Alain de Botton notes that the characteristics of the environment that ignite social activities contribute most to the pursuit of happiness.  In addition to the tangible properties of the living environment, participation by citizens plays is of importance as a direct consequence of self-determination.
25 years ago, residents of two streets in Portland (USA) decided to turn the intersection of those streets into a meeting place. At first, only tents, tables, chairs and play equipment were placed on the sidewalks, later the intersection itself was used at set times. After some negotiations, the city council agreed, if this would be sufficiently made visible. The residents didn't think twice and engaged in painting the street as visible as possible (See the image above). The residents agree that this whole project has made their lives happier and that the many activities they organize on the square still contribute to this.

The impact of happiness on the quality of the living environment.

But, what about the other way around, happiness as a building block for the quality of the living environment? Happy people are a blessing for the other inhabitants of a neighbourhood, because of their good mood, social attitude, willingness to take initiatives, and optimism regarding the future.  At their turn, happy people can make most of available resources in their living environment because of the above-mentioned characteristics.  Environmental qualities are not fixed entities: they derive their value from the meaning citizens give them. In this context, happiness is a mediator between environmental features and their appraisal by citizens.
Therefore, happy citizens can be found in Mumbai slums, and they might be happier than a selfish grumbler in a fancy apartment. At the same time, happy citizens might be best equipped to take the lead in collective action to improve the quality of the living environment, also because of the above-mentioned characteristics.
Follow the link below to find an overview of all articles.  

This is the 24st episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. Its topic is how involving citizens in policy, beyond the elected representatives, will strengthen democracy and enhance the quality of the living environment, as experienced by citizens.

Strengthening local democracy

Democratization is a decision-making process that identifies the will of the people after which government implements the results. Voting once every few years and subsequently letting an unpredictable coalition of parties make and implement policy is the leanest form of democracy. Democracy can be given more substance along two lines: (1) greater involvement of citizens in policy-making and (2) more autonomy in the performance of tasks. The photos above illustrate these lines; they show citizens who at some stage contribute to policy development, citizens who work on its implementation and citizens who celebrate a success.

Citizen Forums

In Swiss, the desire of citizens for greater involvement in political decision-making at all levels is substantiated by referenda. However, they lack the opportunity to exchange views, let alone to discuss them.
In his book Against Elections (2013), the Flemish political scientist David van Reybrouck proposes appointing representatives based on a weighted lottery. There are several examples in the Netherlands. In most cases, the acceptance of the results by the established politicians, in particular the elected representatives of the people, was the biggest hurdle. A committee led by Alex Brenninkmeijer, who has sadly passed away, has expressed a positive opinion about the role of citizen forums in climate policy in some advice to the House of Representatives. Last year, a mini-citizen's forum was held in Amsterdam, also chaired by Alex Brenninkmeijer, on the concrete question of how Amsterdam can accelerate the energy transition.

Autonomy

The ultimate step towards democratization is autonomy: Residents then not only decide, for example, about playgrounds in their neighbourhood, they also ensure that these are provided, sometimes with financial support from the municipality. The right to do so is formally laid down in the 'right to challenge'. For example, a group of residents proves that they can perform a municipal task better and cheaper themselves. This represents a significant step on the participation ladder from participation to co-creation.

Commons

In Italy, this process has boomed. The city of Bologna is a stronghold of urban commons. Citizens become designers, managers, and users of part of municipal tasks. Ranging from creating green areas, converting an empty house into affordable units for students, the elderly or migrants, operating a minibus service, cleaning and maintaining the city walls, redesigning parts of the public space etcetera.
From 2011 on commons can be given a formal status.  In cooperation pacts the city council and the parties involved (informal groups, NGOs, schools, companies) lay down agreements about their activities, responsibilities, and power. Hundreds of pacts have been signed since the regulation was adopted. The city makes available what the citizens need - money, materials, housing, advice - and the citizens donate their time and skills.

From executing together to deciding together

The following types of commons can be distinguished:
Collaboration: Citizens perform projects in their living environment, such as the management of a communal (vegetable) garden, the management of tools to be used jointly, a neighborhood party. The social impact of this kind of activities is large.
Taking over (municipal) tasks: Citizens take care of collective facilities, such as a community center or they manage a previously closed swimming pool. In Bologna, residents have set up a music center in an empty factory with financial support from the municipality.
Cooperation: This refers to a (commercial) activity, for example a group of entrepreneurs who revive a street under their own responsibility.
Self-government: The municipality delegates several administrative and management tasks to the residents of a neighborhood after they have drawn up a plan, for example for the maintenance of green areas, taking care of shared facilities, the operation of minibus transport.
<em>Budgetting</em>: In a growing number of cities, citizens jointly develop proposals to spend part of the municipal budget.

The role of the municipality in local initiatives

The success of commons in Italy and elsewhere in the world – think of the Dutch energy cooperatives – is based on people’s desire to perform a task of mutual benefit together, but also on the availability of resources and support.
The way support is organized is an important success factor. The placemaking model, developed in the United Kingdom, can be applied on a large scale. In this model, small independent support teams at neighbourhood level have proven to be necessary and effective.
 
Follow the link below to find an overview of all articles.  

This is the 23st episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. Its topic is the way how the quality of the living environment benefits from good governance.

In 1339 Ambrogio Lorenzetti completed his famous series of six paintings in the town hall of the Italian city of Siena: The Allegory of Good and Bad Government. The image above refers to the characteristics of governance: Putting the interests of citizens first, renouncing self-interest, helpfulness, and justice. These characteristics still apply.

Rooted in the community

The starting point of urban policy is a long-term vision on the development of the city that is tailored to the needs and wishes of citizens, as they become manifest within and beyond the institutional channels of representative democracy. In policies that are rooted in the community, knowledge, experiences, and actions of those involved are also addressed. Each city has a pool of experts in every field; many are prepared to commit themselves to the future of their hometown.

Participation

Governance goes beyond elections, representative bodies, following proper procedures and enforcing the law. An essential feature is that citizens can trust that the government protects their interests and that their voices are heard. The municipality of Amsterdam has access to a broad range of instruments: co-design, Initiating a referendum, subsiding local initiatives, neighbourhood law, including the 'right to challenge' and neighbourhood budgets. I will deal with participation in the next post.

Two-way communication

Barcelona and Madrid both use technical means to give citizens a voice and to make this voice heard in policy. Barcelona developed the platform Decidem (which means 'We decide' in Catalan) and Madrid made available Decide Madrid ('Madrid decides'). Both platforms provide citizens with information about the policy, allow them to put topics on the policy agenda, start discussions, change policy proposals, and issue voting recommendations for the city council.
Madrid has developed its participatory electronic environment together with CONSUL, a Madrid-based company. CONSUL enables cities to organize citizen participation on the internet. The package is very extensive. The software and its use is free. Consul is in use in 130 cities and organizations in 33 countries and has reached some 90 million citizens worldwide.

City management

Each city offers a range of services and facilities, varying from the fire brigade, police, health services, municipal cleaning services to 'Call and repair' lines, enabling residents to report defects, vandalism, damage, or neglect. Nuisance has many sources: non-functioning bridges, traffic lights, behavior of fellow citizens, young and old, traffic, aircraft noise and neighbours. In many cases, the police are called upon, but they are too often unable or unwilling to intervene because other work is considered more urgent. This is detrimental to citizens' confidence in 'politics' and seriously detracts from the quality of the living environment.

Resilience

Cities encounter disasters and chronic problems that can take decades to resolve. Resilience is needed to cope and includes measures that reduce the consequences of chronic stress (e.g., communal violence) and - if possible - acute shocks (e.g., floods) and eliminate their occurrence through measures 'at the source.'
For an adequate approach to disasters, the fire brigade, police, and ambulances work together and involve citizens. This cooperation must be learned and built up through practice, improvisation and trust and is not created through a hierarchical chain of command.
 
 
Follow the link below to find an overview of all articles.