根本就没有自行车交通:对公众反对支持自行车规划的批判性话语分析

Robert Egan , Brian Caulfield
{"title":"根本就没有自行车交通:对公众反对支持自行车规划的批判性话语分析","authors":"Robert Egan ,&nbsp;Brian Caulfield","doi":"10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Across a variety of low-cycling contexts, there are ambitious targets to reduce private car use and increase cycling to decarbonise everyday mobility practices. A component of many plans to achieve this modal shift is through active travel measures that redistribute rights to space, access or speed in a way that may prioritise cycling over driving. However, public opposition to proposals that might reduce the relative accessibility of driving can limit the possibility and scope of redistributive active travel measures, thereby preventing timely climate action and broader transport system change. In this study, we explored public opposition to a major redistributive active travel scheme proposed in the electoral county of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, located within the Dublin Metropolitan Area of Ireland, to examine more broadly how car-based automobility is politically sustained in this unique context. We focused our analysis on 150 public consultation submissions using Faircloughian Critical Discourse Analysis. In this paper, we present several major properties of an oppositional ‘technical discourse of transport planning’, that is normatively car-centric: ‘traffic’ as car-based (im)mobility, roads as ‘traffic’ spaces, ‘traffic’ as an immutable substance, and traffic demand-led planning. We interrogate the historical origins of this discourse in the context of Ireland and consider its effects on planning practices in relation to reproducing car-based automobility. Lastly, we conclude with recommendations that can form part of a counter-discourse that is more compatible with transport decarbonisation targets: wording cycle mobility as ‘cycle traffic’, construing redistributive cycleways as spaces of ‘traffic conversion’ rather than ‘traffic diversion’, and saliently outlining a principle of vision-led planning in redistributive active travel measures, amidst prevailing assumptions that transport planning ought to continue as a primarily ‘demand-led’ practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100771,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100014"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105924000056/pdfft?md5=c58be40cde3c7ef1f0822c4c1c61bb7e&pid=1-s2.0-S2950105924000056-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"There’s no such thing as cycle traffic: A critical discourse analysis of public opposition to pro-cycle planning\",\"authors\":\"Robert Egan ,&nbsp;Brian Caulfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Across a variety of low-cycling contexts, there are ambitious targets to reduce private car use and increase cycling to decarbonise everyday mobility practices. A component of many plans to achieve this modal shift is through active travel measures that redistribute rights to space, access or speed in a way that may prioritise cycling over driving. However, public opposition to proposals that might reduce the relative accessibility of driving can limit the possibility and scope of redistributive active travel measures, thereby preventing timely climate action and broader transport system change. In this study, we explored public opposition to a major redistributive active travel scheme proposed in the electoral county of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, located within the Dublin Metropolitan Area of Ireland, to examine more broadly how car-based automobility is politically sustained in this unique context. We focused our analysis on 150 public consultation submissions using Faircloughian Critical Discourse Analysis. In this paper, we present several major properties of an oppositional ‘technical discourse of transport planning’, that is normatively car-centric: ‘traffic’ as car-based (im)mobility, roads as ‘traffic’ spaces, ‘traffic’ as an immutable substance, and traffic demand-led planning. We interrogate the historical origins of this discourse in the context of Ireland and consider its effects on planning practices in relation to reproducing car-based automobility. Lastly, we conclude with recommendations that can form part of a counter-discourse that is more compatible with transport decarbonisation targets: wording cycle mobility as ‘cycle traffic’, construing redistributive cycleways as spaces of ‘traffic conversion’ rather than ‘traffic diversion’, and saliently outlining a principle of vision-led planning in redistributive active travel measures, amidst prevailing assumptions that transport planning ought to continue as a primarily ‘demand-led’ practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100014\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105924000056/pdfft?md5=c58be40cde3c7ef1f0822c4c1c61bb7e&pid=1-s2.0-S2950105924000056-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105924000056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950105924000056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在各种低自行车使用率的环境中,都有减少私家车使用和增加自行车使用的宏伟目标,以实现日常交通行为的低碳化。在许多计划中,实现这种交通模式转变的一个组成部分是采取积极的出行措施,重新分配空间、通道或速度的权利,使骑自行车优先于开车。然而,如果公众反对可能降低驾驶相对可及性的建议,就会限制重新分配积极出行措施的可能性和范围,从而阻碍及时的气候行动和更广泛的交通系统变革。在本研究中,我们探讨了公众对爱尔兰都柏林都会区邓莱里-拉思当选举郡提出的一项大型再分配式积极出行计划的反对意见,以更广泛地研究在这种独特的背景下,以汽车为基础的自动驾驶是如何在政治上得以维持的。我们采用费尔克拉夫批判性话语分析法,重点分析了 150 份公众咨询意见书。在本文中,我们介绍了以汽车为中心的对立 "交通规划技术话语 "的几个主要特性:"交通 "是以汽车为基础的(非)流动性,道路是 "交通 "空间,"交通 "是永恒不变的物质,以及交通需求主导规划。我们以爱尔兰为背景,探究了这一论述的历史渊源,并考虑了其对规划实践的影响,即再现以汽车为基础的机动性。最后,我们提出了一些建议,这些建议可以成为更符合交通脱碳目标的反话语的一部分:将自行车交通称为 "自行车交通",将重新分配的自行车道解释为 "交通转换 "空间而非 "交通分流 "空间,在交通规划应继续以 "需求为主导 "的普遍假设中,在重新分配的积极出行措施中突出强调愿景主导规划的原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
There’s no such thing as cycle traffic: A critical discourse analysis of public opposition to pro-cycle planning

Across a variety of low-cycling contexts, there are ambitious targets to reduce private car use and increase cycling to decarbonise everyday mobility practices. A component of many plans to achieve this modal shift is through active travel measures that redistribute rights to space, access or speed in a way that may prioritise cycling over driving. However, public opposition to proposals that might reduce the relative accessibility of driving can limit the possibility and scope of redistributive active travel measures, thereby preventing timely climate action and broader transport system change. In this study, we explored public opposition to a major redistributive active travel scheme proposed in the electoral county of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, located within the Dublin Metropolitan Area of Ireland, to examine more broadly how car-based automobility is politically sustained in this unique context. We focused our analysis on 150 public consultation submissions using Faircloughian Critical Discourse Analysis. In this paper, we present several major properties of an oppositional ‘technical discourse of transport planning’, that is normatively car-centric: ‘traffic’ as car-based (im)mobility, roads as ‘traffic’ spaces, ‘traffic’ as an immutable substance, and traffic demand-led planning. We interrogate the historical origins of this discourse in the context of Ireland and consider its effects on planning practices in relation to reproducing car-based automobility. Lastly, we conclude with recommendations that can form part of a counter-discourse that is more compatible with transport decarbonisation targets: wording cycle mobility as ‘cycle traffic’, construing redistributive cycleways as spaces of ‘traffic conversion’ rather than ‘traffic diversion’, and saliently outlining a principle of vision-led planning in redistributive active travel measures, amidst prevailing assumptions that transport planning ought to continue as a primarily ‘demand-led’ practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Designing an E-Bike City: An automated process for network-wide multimodal road space reallocation Scooting into place: How comfort on different infrastructure types influences shared e-scooter trip making A deep reinforcement learning solution to help reduce the cost in waiting time of securing a traffic light for cyclists Bike users’ route choice behaviour: Expectations from electric bikes versus reality in Greater Helsinki Overtaking on rural roads – Cyclists' and motorists' perspectives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1