Developing Mobility

Mobility in an urban context initially fulfils the function of spatially correlating the otherwise static urban infrastructures with one another and sensibly links them. Mobility makes the city more dynamic. However, the vehicles of mobility – above all the car – have accelerated the city to such an extent that a discrepancy between overcoming space and perceiving mobility prevails among city dwellers. This also makes the city difficult to interpret as an experienceable space for the occupants of mobility vehicles. Every opportunity for active mobility (walking, cycling, etc.) that a city offers to its inhabitants and visitors counteracts this. Urban dwellers are thus in a position to establish meaningful social links in the city with a sense of space, which promotes their well-being both in the form of self-determination and in their self-image as part of urban life. Long and cumbersome routes – especially to the workplace – also lead to a decline in social activities. For example, social involvement in groups and associations or volunteer work is reduced by 10%1 for every ten minutes of additional travel to and from work. Employees with long journeys, for example, are more likely to be absent from work.

The urban infrastructure must offer assistance, especially in populations at a risk of social isolation with a limited or – with increasing age – decreasing radius of action. A good urban mobility concept extends right up to one’s own front door. The larger the city, the more complex the movement patterns and structures its inhabitants have to cope with. In a densely woven functional and social context, city dwellers are in a position to react confidently to unpredictability, because they find small-scale personal social structures in their immediate surroundings that support them. At the same time, a dense urban environment offers the opportunity to “show” oneself only partially, i.e. to hide one’s own personality to a certain extent in the anonymity of urban commotion.

The further the daily distances to be covered (typically from outlying urban areas to centrally located ones) and the more monofunctional the destinations (typically bedroom communities and office blocks), the more stressful everyday life becomes. Because, in addition to the stress of overcoming distances (traffic jams, crowded railcars/buses, etc.), there is also a lack of a local support network. Consequently, unlike urban dwellers operating in a smaller radius, the environment causes additional stress instead of providing relief.

With increasing segregation and homogenisation of the urban population, this becomes more socially relevant, because the positive effects of urban living benefit fewer and more socially advantaged people. At the same time, those who are much more dependent on the positive effects of their environment, members of as socially weaker strata, are displaced from these dense central spaces to outlying areas. An integrative urban mobility concept counteracts these tendencies by intervening in the urban body, defragmenting it and looking for possibilities to reconnect the urban spaces that are separated from each other or to strengthen the (still) existing spatial relationships. Thus, even where distances grow with urban expansion, a contemporary mobility mix, in which public transport, shared taxis, car and bike sharing services are integrally linked, can reduce distance resistance and bring the city closer together for its inhabitants.