Road space re-allocation Streets as contested spaces The findings reported in this deliverable reflect the state of knowledge up to their first submission date. A revised version will be submitted in August 2021 that will include more recent material. Start date of 1st September Duration: 36 months project: 2018 Version: 1 Prepared by: Charlotte Halpern, Francesco Sarti (Sciences Po, CEE), Jenny McArthur (UCL) Checked by: Peter Jones (UCL) Verified by: X Status: x Dissemination PU/CO level: The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither INEA nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 769276 Summary This report is the third WP2 deliverable. Drawing on the work done on the organizational, institutional, regulatory and political dimensions of road space allocation, it focuses on the contestation of street space. By purposefully using the notion of contestation, it sets out to identify various views on how space should be allocated across different transport modes and non-transport activities, as well as the various ways through which they are made material. Who has an interest in contesting road space arrangements or proposed changes? What are these claims about? How are they mobilized? To what extent are these claims channelled by formal consultation and decision-making processes? What similarities can be found across cities? How are these views represented at EU level? Drawing on an original qualitative dataset, the report includes an up-to- date analysis of how the contestation of street space enfolds across five cities - London, Constanta, Malmö, Lisbon and Budapest - and at EU level. This contributes to the understanding of transition management in the transport policy domain, from a car-oriented transport policy perspective towards the development of new policy approaches, such as one favouring sustainable mobility and over the recent period, place- making. It complements the work done by other partners at project level and contributes to the conceptualization, at project level, of urban roads as an ecosystem. The detailed, supporting analysis for each of the five cases is made available through “city portraits” in this report’s appendices, together with two sets of recommendations of how existing EU and Member states legislation should be revised in order to accommodate cycling. Cross-city findings confirm both to the socio-political significance of streets, even for mundane interventions such as parking regulations, cycle lanes or changes to lane widths, and to the relevance of a more systematic analysis of the politics of road space allocation. As such it contributes to the existing literature on transport policy, planning and decision-making. Yet exploring the motivations and approaches for contestation also sheds light on the various ways through which street space contestation operates in the context of EU multilevel governance. First, it confirms that the politics of road space re-allocation requires reconciling diverging interest groups and perspectives on the future of roads. Second, a variety of tactics and strategies are developed in order for public authorities, across levels of government, private and commercial actors, non-governmental organizations and citizen, to influence the development and implementation of road space allocation strategies. The framing of the issue, as opposed to existing governance arrangements, is critical in order to account for the choices. Third, empirical findings from across the five cities confirm that evolving relationships between those advocating new approaches to road space allocation and those resisting such changes depend on the local authorities’ capacity for innovations in governance such as consultation and deliberative processes for example. This helps understand, beyond institutional, organizational and political factors, some similarities and differences across cities in terms of involving the wider public alongside technical experts, planners and elected officials, and the trade-offs and tensions between different transport modes and activities. More importantly, the report confirms the instrumental role of street space contestation in order to overcome some of the institutional, organizational and regulatory barriers that were identified at earlier stages of research. In other words, street space contestation contributes over time to strengthening governing capacities at the urban level and constitutes, as such, a major driver for road space re-allocation and the shift towards cities as places. Road space re-allocation Streets as contested spaces Page 3 of 3 Copyright © 2020 by MORE Version: 8 Road space re-allocation Streets as contested spaces The findings reported in this deliverable reflect the state of knowledge up to their first submission date. A revised version will be submitted in August 2021 that will include more recent material. Start date of 1st September Duration: 36 months project: 2018 Version: 1 Prepared by: Charlotte Halpern (Sciences Po), Jenny McArthur (UCL), Francesco Sarti, Juliette Thijs (Sciences Po, CEE) Checked by: Peter Jones (UCL) The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither INEA nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 769276 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................... 6 1.1 Streets as ecosystems ....................................................................................... 6 1.2 Similar challenges, different strategies ............................................................... 7 1.3 Organizational, institutional, regulatory and political factors: Work Package 2 in brief .................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Street space contestation: the report’s main objectives ................................... 10 1.5 Outline .............................................................................................................. 11 2 Street space contestation: a literature review ........................... 12 2.1 What are the motivations for contesting street space? ..................................... 12 2.1.1 Historically-situated motivations for contesting street space ...............................12 2.1.2 Environmental protection ...................................................................................13 2.1.3 Gentrification ......................................................................................................13 2.1.4 “Right to the city” ................................................................................................14 2.1.5 Social well-being, redistribution and equality ......................................................15 2.1.6 Lack of public consultation .................................................................................15 2.2 Who contests street space ? ............................................................................ 16 2.2.1 A word of caution ...............................................................................................16 2.2.2 Citizens mobilizing on an ad hoc basis ...............................................................16 2.2.3 Associations, NGOs and advocacy groups ........................................................17 2.2.4 Public authorities and state-local competition .....................................................18 2.3 Tactics and strategies for contestation ............................................................. 18 2.3.1 Events and communication to inform or/and mobilise the general public ............19 2.3.2 Discussions with public bodies, local authorities and the government ................19 2.3.3 Legal tools .........................................................................................................20 2.3.4 Tactical alliances ...............................................................................................20 2.3.5 Illegal or nonviolent radical direct action .............................................................20 2.4 Contesting groups and public authorities’ relations .......................................... 21 2.4.1 Impact of contestation groups on public authorities ............................................21 2.4.2 Collaborative relations between contesting groups and public authorities ..........21 2.4.3 No impact of contestation groups on public authorities ......................................22 2.4.4 Electoral cycles and vote ...................................................................................22 2.5 Lessons from the literature review ................................................................... 23 3 Conceptual framework, research design and methodology ..... 25 3.1 What is street space contestation? .................................................................. 25 3.2 Research design .............................................................................................