Mobilities, a prerogative claimed by urban governments

4On the evening of 24 May 2015, the victory of the three political formations Ahora Madrid, Barcelona en Comù and Compromís in Valencia shook the foundations of urban governance in Spain. It confirmed the political repolarisation of Southern Europe’s cities (Leontidou, 2010). The advent of teams rooted in civic platforms reshaped the political space (Seixas, 2015). A new stage of municipalism began (Martí-Costa, Tomàs, 2017), after the municipalist era of post-Franco Transition, and the entrepreneurial moment of the 1990s (Genieys et al., 2004). Blanco (2015) has shown the dual nature of this political turn. First, it depends on the building of coalitions (political understandings between parties extended to other political, economic and societal entities and interests). Second, it emphasizes on the « commons », i.e. questions that affect the day-to-day lives of citizens, such as housing or mobility. Local policies relating to mobilities have brought about a threefold change in political life : in the nature and forms of political leadership, in the transformation of the modes of action on public space, and in relational systems present in each of the cities. An example of this development is the shifting role of private partners in the funding, regulation and management of licence contracts for self-service bicycle schemes (Huré, 2017). In Madrid, for instance, the remunicipalisation of the Bicimad contract in 2016 showed that the multinational firm JC Decaux, one of the global leaders for this type of contract, was no longer a central player.

5The media hype around the idea of a local transport revolution in these cities. But specialists underline the lack of capacity for action of Spanish municipal governments, which they attribute to several factors, notably the structural indebtedness and imbalances of local authorities (González Pérez et al., 2016) and the asymmetry of municipal power in the distribution of prerogatives in Spain’s institutional framework. In fact, in the field of transport, most of the levers are in the hands of the state (which funds big infrastructures, such as motorways and highspeed rail) (González, 2016). Moreover, the state has set strategic goals for sustainable urban mobility (a first generation of planning documents such as Estrategia española de la movilidad sostenible was launched by the Zapatero government) (Vega, 2016). In addition, the autonomous communities are increasingly involved in this sphere (De Gregorio, 2014). Catalonia Generalitat was a pioneer, with the introduction of a mobility act as early as 2003 that provided the basis for urban mobility planning at regional, metropolitan and local scale (Cascajo et al., 2018). Nonetheless, the municipal level is now more heavily involved in this field of political action, although the economic crisis exacerbated urban vulnerabilities. Making local territories more resilient not just to future economic crises, but also to ecological risks is a crucial priority, making local governance of mobility even more fundamental (Marquet, Miralles, 2017).

The sociotechnical transition in transport and mobilities

6Mobilities also stand at the heart of sociotechnical transformation, often referred to as transition. According to Geels, radical innovations appear and develop in niches where they gain the support of a small minority. Then the innovation spreads and becomes the framework of an innovation regime. It is then adopted within a local context and follows a reconfiguration pathway [1]. Subsequently, the innovation is consolidated within an innovation landscape, i.e. a framework in which it is widely accepted and shared, and around which the rest of the economic and political system is restructured (Geels, 2012). Although simplistic, this model can be used for the current transition from automobility to a more diverse mobility system. Automobility refers to a system in which the car is not necessarily the dominant mode of transport, but the one granted by political and economic decisions (Urry, 2004). In Spain, this model can adapt to the bicycle, which is gradually losing its marginal status (Muñoz et al., 2016). The mobility transition therefore consists in reorienting urban regimes through normative tools, while at the same time transforming mobility practices and broader lifestyles by educational and cultural means. Insofar as the emphasis is placed on collective learning and on the commons, the sociotechnical transition in transport and the shift in the governance of mobilities towards a transformation in practices seem not only compatible but even mutually reinforcing.

7At the interface between the sociotechnical sphere and politics, therefore, the mobility transition is mainly governed at local level. Docherty introduces the notion of purposive governance in reference to the process whereby elected officials avoid direct ideological confrontation and redefine the negotiating framework by building shared visions, ideas and values [2] (Docherty et al., 2018). He explains how officials avoid the « demonisation » of motorists by stating the end goals of these policies (e.g. the right to breathe clean air) and by emphasising the rights opened up to all citizens from a perspective of democratic restoration (e.g. the possibility for even the most vulnerable people – such as the elderly – to move safely in public space).

8Another useful concept is infrastructural governance. It refers to the way in which local governments use infrastructures and service networks for the joint purpose of frugality in both energy use and finance (Haarstad, 2016 ; Wegrich et al., 2017). Recent Spanish history is a good illustration of this shift. The previous municipalities used infrastructures to support the growth machine. In Madrid especially, radial motorways were built in order to support real estate development in the outskirts. The current municipalities use infrastructures as a way to save money and provide a public service.

Reclaming Public Space

13The greening of municipal agendas advances through mobility. The central priority for the municipalities of change is a simultaneous reform of public space and travel practices (Boix, Marzal, 2015). Yet, their political priorities differ. Madrid focuses primarily on limiting air pollution, Barcelona on fluid traffic movement, and Valencia on the reclamation and pacification of public space. The chief symbols of this agenda are the metamorphoses of a handful of iconic urban locations. Between 2015 and 2019, such big projects include the expansion of the pedestrianised areas on the Gran Via in Madrid ; the concealment of automobile flows under Gloriès Square in Barcelona ; the redevelopment of City Hall Square in Valencia. Moreover, all these municipalities have a “totem”, in other words an object that is simultaneously elevated to the status of a symbol of change and of a miracle solution. The Barcelona totem could have been the tramway, but, as will be explained later, the political opportunity has been lost. Consequently, the bicycle has become the symbol, or the rolling signifier (Hoffmann, 2016) of the change these three municipalities promote. Bike is not only as a virtuous mode of travel, it is also the instrument for the transformation of public space, as well as a medium of positivity and affect (Castillo, 2013). Yet, in all the three cities, governance entails arguments that, as shown below (Table 2), bring into play the social, economic and environmental dimensions alike.

14Inevitably, this agenda attracts heavy criticism from all sides. The right-wing opposition quickly took up the cudgels on behalf of motorists affected by the restriction on access to the city centre and the reduction in parking spaces. As observed in other cities, the totemisation of the bicycle has also produced a political front or a “bikelash” (Wild et al., 2018). Residents rejects the new paradigm of mobilities. In Madrid, for example, residents of Calle de Galileo accuse the politicians of being blind to the real world consequences of the street conversion programmes. They see the too little-used cycle lane built along this road as useless, while the reduction in the width of the roadway available for cars exacerbates congestion and pollution.

15At the opposite end of the spectrum of sensitivities, the radical left social movements that had been fighting for mobility issues to be included on the agenda since the early 2000s, via multiple demonstrations and street parties (bicifestaciones held each Thursday in Madrid), are expressing some disillusion and negotiating their support for the existing municipalities. These civil society movements have ramped up the pressure through their favourite instrument, social media (López León, 2016). They question the relations between the new municipalities and the international mobility players. They note that, except in Madrid, the licensing contracts for self-service bicycle schemes stay out of municipal control. Some radical elements target the Chinese companies that are flooding the pavements with free-floating bikes and boards [5].

Mobility policy : continuity or change ?

16There is no doubt that mobilities have been significantly re-politicised, after a pre-crisis period (1990s-2000s) marked by two characteristics : the marginalisation of this field of political action (with the dominance of a highly technical approach) and the capture of road infrastructure programmes by a speculative growth machine. Anyway, the ecological conversion of transport is a long process that began in the 1990s (Estevan, Sanz, 1996). The measures implemented by the municipalities of change are in continuity with earlier mobility policies. Their content was already identifiable in the programmes of the previous municipalities and had begun to be implemented.

17In Madrid, Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón (mayor from 2003 to 2011) was very committed to a form of infrastructure-based urban government (he conducted the works of the M30 motorway). Ana Botella (mayor from 2011 to 2015) didn’t develop a great infrastructure project but reorganized the municipal administration and merged the environment and mobility into a single department, notably to tackle the problem of pollution spikes on which the European Union regularly called for local action.

18In Barcelona, the local authorities had been pursuing a municipal (and metropolitan) mobility policy for longer than the other cities. This effort reflected, among other things, in the insistence of the urban players on producing an exportable “Barcelona model” founded on the quality of public space (Tomás, Négrier, 2018). Until the mid-2000s, the distribution of the portfolios and the organisation of the municipality was compartmentalised : on one side the governance of infrastructures and public space, with one elected official in charge, on the other side the management of transport and traffic accident prevention, headed by another official. However, things changed faster than in Madrid or Valencia, following the launch of a “Mobility pact”. Mobility rose to the top of the agenda under Jordi Hereu who, before becoming mayor, had been the safety and mobility officer in the previous municipality. The official he appointed to deal with mobilities was Joaquim Forn, who symbolically held the functions of first deputy and spokesman of the municipal team. At that time, all the big programmes backed by the current municipality of Ada Colau were already in play : the competition on Plaça de les Glories started in 2013, and the projects of slowing down and “civilising” the avenues leading into the city centre (e.g. Avenida Meridiana) at the same period.

19In Valencia too, the image of a mobility revolution hawked by the media needs to be qualified in favour of forms of continuity. Rita Barbera’s two decades as mayor masks a gradual maturing of the paradigms of mobility transition in local action. This can be tracked through the career of one of her right-hand men in the different municipal teams and through different key programmes. That man was Alfonso Novo Belenguer, who from 2003 to 2007 held the “Traffic, Transport and Infrastructure” portfolio. At that time, his position in the hierarchy of councillors was still obscure. In the next municipal team, 2007-2012, Belenguer obtained the position of deputy mayor with a growing list of portfolios (Circulación, Transportes e Infraestructuras del Transporte, Patrimonio y Gestión Patrimonial). Helped by a Concejal Delegado de Circulación y Transportes, he launched a plan for a city centre cycle network and clearly expressed the wish to limit the presence of cars in order to increase fluidity of travel.

Mobility policy and public life morality

21A policy narrative is a set of stories that place the present within a coherent series of events. Narratives make problems comprehensible and accessible to action. The city of Valencia has been considerably touched by the recent economic crisis and by the Popular Party corruption scandals. In this context, mobility policy narrative is used as an instrument of local political moralisation (Kennedy, 2016). First, the pacification of car traffic and the support given to cyclists and pedestrians alter the balance in the conditions of access to public space. Improvement to the urban model is understood as the advent of a system that offers users a more egalitarian share in collective movement. With the decrease of speed, citizens care one another and treat each other with greater respect. This model therefore constitutes the foundation of a change in the relations between city dwellers, and therefore between citizens. The moralization of public life becomes a reality because it is applied directly to day-to-day acts. In this way, the crusade for a renewed urban mobility regime regenerates public mores, re-moulds local democracy and conjures the populist threat.

22The substance of the confrontations between municipal majority and opposition therefore resides not so much in the measures implemented than in the ends pursued in this disruptive agenda. For the majorities, the bicycle is not only presented as a mode of transport, but as an instrument of civilisation. (This operates in other countries such as Australia, see Cooper, Leahy, 2017). Bike dissemination through the city is perceived as helping to slow down cars. It is supposed as a lever to redefine the acceptability of behaviours on the public highway. Therefore, bike is presented as the key to a collective coexistence founded on tolerance, exemplary personal conduct, respect for others. This shocks the rightist local opposition, which condemns the ideological dimension of this mobility policy. What is seen by the municipal majority as an extension of freedom is perceived by the PP and Ciudadanos Party as undermining freedom of movement of car owners. PP municipal elected also criticise the hegemonic dimension of this approach to mobilities.

Mobility, a way to materialize change and regain city pride

23Local action is incremental. Traffic problems cannot be solved in one go, the modal share of pedestrians and cyclists increases slowly. Mobility policy supports the small steps discourse and the idea of a permanent progress. Mobility decisions, such as bike lanes construction along Madrid, Valencia or Barcelona avenues are useful with regard to the opposition and citizens, but also within these coalitions themselves, where impatience and internal criticism are on the rise. The officials try to show, in situ, project after project, a process of continuous improvement. Widening the pavements, doubling cycle lanes programmes, limiting the expansion of restaurant terraces that inconvenience pedestrians, or limiting parking, all provide a concrete and material embodiment of the abstract idea of change and make it possible to maintain this claim as a leitmotiv throughout the whole term of office. Following the initiatory breakthrough of 2015, the necessarily evolving and processual nature of urban planning has been reformulated as a logic of progressive, tenacious and continuing realisation of the ultimate (i.e. democratic and ethical) goals of these municipalities of change.

24Finally, mobility policies enable politicians to marshal identity as a political resource. Subjects such as the frequency of pollution spikes or the very small modal shares held by active mobilities (walking and cycling) show the backwardness of Spain’s cities in the rankings of sustainable cities at European or international level. Reversing this trend is a way for these cities to gild their image. For example, by announcing that it is starting its cycle lane project “before Madrid”, Valencia municipality can emphasise the idea of catching up, or even of repairing the city’s collective honour after a decade of negative publicity wrought by the scandals of its body politic in the 2000s (Cucó, 2013). The slogan whereby Valencia claims the status of a Mediterranean model of “nice cities” (Valencia Ciutat amable [6]) is also an instrument for the reinforcement, not to say the reconstruction, of identity.

Mobilities and the municipal “fetish” of participation

25The programmes relating to mobilities are also a way for officials to bring local democracy to life, partly by holding consultations, and partly by creating communities around highly localised projects for the development of public space (Lorenzi, Acero, 2016). In this sense, the agenda offers support for the construction of a common good through participation, what Diaz terms the new political “fetish” (Díaz Parra et al., 2017).

26Mobility issues give politicians an opportunity to interact with citizens and to renew democratic processes of local governance. In Madrid, this is illustrated through consultation initiatives. On 19 February 2017, 2.7 million Madrid residents aged 16 and above were invited to vote on several reforms, including reforms relating to foot travel and cycling and restrictions on automobile traffic (area residencial). While this consultation attracted little interest, the invitation to vote for the best project for the Plaza de España was more successful. Barcelona municipality does not ask citizens to vote on mobility issues, since this issue falls mainly within the purview of the metropolitan authority, and is therefore largely beyond the reach of citizen involvement. Valencia has found a different way to democratise mobility issues through the mesa de movilidad. In this arena, the controversial regulations on restaurant terraces (or the negotiations with taxi and Uber representants) have led to a turbulent reformulation of the links between mobility, access to public space and the broader question of the commons. The Valencian councillor charged with the mobility portfolio has proposed some decisions that show his commitment with societal questions. He has introduced preferential pricing for young people, the elderly and the vulnerable in Valencia’s bus system. He has developed gender measures through the recruitment of female bus drivers. He connects mobility targets with participative events, equitative social programmes and anti-austerity measures. By recapitalising the municipal transport company, he pretends having protected a component of local public service after years of austerity. None of this has shielded him from widespread criticism.