This scientific paper is about an urban ‘development’ that sparked one of the greatest threats to life: automobility. Motor vehicle crashes have killed more people than World War II (Braun & Randell, 2022), resulting not only from the car itself but also from the social and physical reconstruction of streets into spaces for speed and efficiency rather than messy human living (Norton, 2008). While 1970’s activism gained the Netherlands a safer infrastructure, here traffic kills hundreds of people each year and the numbers have increased. Critical mobility scholars have argued that ways of thinking about this ‘vehicular violence’ (Culver, 2018) keep it from being properly addressed by city planners. Over time, public perception of traffic deaths has shifted from a heartbreaking and unacceptable result of the invention of automobility to unremarkable ‘accidents’. Even Dutch policy now predominantly places responsibility for safety on people who are not in cars, who are the most likely victims. Meanwhile, the perceptions of another group of actors have not yet been studied: the people impacted by traffic crashes themselves. Survivors regularly participate in public debate, where their stories have a ‘moral authority that no one can deny’ (Bateson, 2022: 2) and a strong influence on public perception (Newman, 2003). Therefore, this paper analyzes how survivors and deceased victims’ relatives in the Dutch context narrate their lived experiences with traffic crashes. In in-depth interviews, they echo existing narratives of individual responsibility, resist them with narratives of societal responsibility, and invent new narratives that absolve all from blame and that rehumanize, showing deceased victims’ individuality and meaning to their communities and the ongoing impact on survivors’ lives. While earlier studies expose the automobile industry as an important factor shaping the macro level narratives of media and policy, this paper newly explores how meaning-making after trauma leads survivors to both reproduce and resist those narratives. Thereby, the study contributes to a diverse understanding of the public perceptions that ultimately shape (im)mobility thinking and planning, and it allows advocates of counter-narratives to consider the complexities and sensitivities of survivors’ lived experiences in order to minimize re-traumatizing. Accepting that the perfect narrative does not exist, the paper proposes to increase awareness among all actors who disseminate narratives of traffic crashes rather than offer one solution – in other words, to face both ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’. Presenting this study, I will use slides to outline the societal and theoretical context, a brief note on methodology, the results illustrated with quotes from interviews, and lessons for research and practice. Afterwards, I would like to welcome input from the audience about whether and how they see these narratives changing in current policymaking.

Use of temporary and tactical interventions to fulfil new demand for active travel modes in cities has experienced an explosion in interest from researchers and practitioners. Critically, they are heralded as means by which radical ideas can be implemented quickly and cheaply by municipal governments to enact a local mobility transition without the risks and costs associated with permanent infrastructure. Despite the critical role of the COVID-19 pandemic as a unique landscape opportunity, full valorisation of these benefits remains rare in practice. Understanding the causal pathways which lead to various successes and failures associated with projects in their diverse contexts. We perform a semi-systematic review of 93 academic sources covering temporary and tactical dynamics in their broadest sense in order to assess the transitional capacity of diverse representative cases. Building from an assessment framework adapted from Roorda et al. (2014) by Bertolini (2020), we find that the viability of using temporary interventions towards long-term transitionary goals are hampered by lack of viable long-term vision; disconnections between levels of governance; a remaining risk-aversion to radical change and a lack of serious attention to mobile behaviour. Cases of failure in experimentation provide the basis for valuable learning experiences. However, in practice, this experience is lost following assessment based on a reductive success/failure dichotomy. Though some research has approached transitional capability of urban experimentation using sets of limited or ideal-typical case studies, this paper makes use of a wide range of cases linked by similar dynamics, casting a wide net in order to draw attention to atypical or immaterial public space interventions. Doing so allows us to focus in on the diverse means by which walking and cycling can be supported at various scales. This paper assesses the transitionary potential of existing case studies on mobility interventions, addressing issues for practice and identifying evidence-based pathways for more strategic utilisation of tactical and temporary street alterations. It provides groundwork for municipalities to lower the risks associated with promoting active travel through design and policy, while furthering the necessary elements for a radical break with the current regime. Keywords: tactical urbanism; active travel; participatory planning; mobility transition. References: Bertolini, L. (2020) From “streets for traffic” to “streets for people”: can street experiments transform urban mobility?, Transport Reviews, 40:6, 734-753, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2020.1761907. Roorda, C., Wittmayer, J., Henneman, P, Steenbergen, F. van, Frantzeskaki, N. & Loorbach, D. (2014) Transition management in the urban context: guidance manual. DRIFT, Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.

The Transport Authority Amsterdam (TRA) recently established that it will guide its long-term mobility policy on the basis of sustainable development, instead of traditional economic indicators. The goal is to create a mobility system that balances economic wellbeing, with ecological and social wellbeing. Realizing this requires a novel approach to transport policy evaluation. Currently, the transport authority still strongly relies on traditional decision-making methods like Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Methods like CBA were originally developed to assess how policy projects contribute to economic welfare. The underlying assumption is that (private) consumer choices can indicate how residents value the effects of government projects. However, how people make choices with their private income (as consumers) may not align with how they believe the government should make decisions with public resources on their behalf (Mouter et al., 2017; 2018). Prior research for the Transport Authority Amsterdam already established that citizens find economic, social and ecological wellbeing important when asked to evaluate transport projects from a public perspective (Mouter et al., 2021). This research used a novel evaluation method called Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE). In a PVE, citizens choose their preferred portfolio of policy projects given a limited government budget. Based on these choices, individuals' preferences for government projects can be determined. These preferences can be used to rank government projects in terms of their societal desirability. This way, Mouter et al. (2021) find that citizens prioritize cycling and safety projects over car projects, which is opposite to the outcomes of a CBA. We build upon the research by Mouter et al. (2021) to investigate to the following research question: To what extent can PVE be used to make trade-offs between economic, social and ecological wellbeing effects of mobility policy? In Februari 2024, residents can participate in a PVE similar to the previous one. They will be asked to choose their preferred portfolio of mobility projects given a limited budget. This way we can elicit the preferences (different subgroups of) residents have for various mobility projects of Transport Authority Amsterdam. In addition, participants also see the effects of these projects on the following wellbeing goals: accessibility, sustainability, safety, health and inclusivity. This way, we seek to not only establish preferences for mobility projects, but also for these wellbeing goals. The aim is to use these preferences to determine the optimal portfolio of projects, where optimal means finding a balance between social, ecological and economic wellbeing. Finally, we by asking participants to motivate their choices, we obtain insights in the values and concerns underlying the preferences for mobility projects and wellbeing goals.

This research delves into the necessity of comprehending gender disparities within transportation hubs, focusing on the 'mobility of care'—a concept that highlights the unique travel needs of unpaid caregivers, predominantly women. The study conducts a comparative analysis of the spatial distribution, diversity, and quantity of facilities associated with caregiving activities near light-rail stations in Alicante and Valencia, Spain. Utilizing a diagnostic approach that merges theoretical frameworks with practical insights, the research leverages user-generated social media data. This methodology is chosen for its wide reach and applicability in different urban contexts, facilitating method replication. The investigation will allow an understanding of the extent to which urban public spaces near transportation hubs cater to the economic and urban activities of caregiving groups, thus shedding light on how this affects the choice of transport modes. Ultimately, this study is about more than just a diagnosis of physical areas; it is about acknowledging and addressing the social aspects of urban mobility. By integrating the concept of the 'mobility of care', the research contributes to the creation of more equitable and inclusive decisions towards the design of urban environments. It aims to enrich our understanding of how transportation hubs and surrounding urban spaces can meet the needs of those involved in unpaid care work, ultimately influencing policies and practices towards more gender-sensitive urban environments.