country report 7 dutch mobility regime - pathways project · greater attention to environmental and...

PATHWAYS project Exploringtransitionpathwaystosustainable,lowcarbon

societiesGrant Agreement number 603942

Deliverable D2.2: ‘Analysis of stability and tensions in incumbent socio-technical regimes’

Country report 7: Regime analysis of Dutch

mobility system

Authors: Bruno Turnheim, Irene Håkansson, Frans Berkhout King’s College London

May 28, 2015

Executive summary

The purpose of this document is to provide an analysis of stability and tensions in the incumbent socio-technical regime(s) within the mobility domain in the Netherlands, as part of PATHWAYS D2.2.

We first provide an overview of the prevailing mobility domain in the Netherlands, and a rationale for focussing specifically on individual land-based mobility. We also discuss the presence of subaltern regimes, and their relationship to the prevailing regime.

The bulk of the document is dedicated to description of the prevailing regime(s), focussing on main developments and tangible system elements, as well as on active social groups and intangible regime elements.

In the concluding section, we analyse the inertia of the prevailing regime in the Netherlands’ mobility domain, and relate it to the PATHWAYS typology. The assessment of stability and tension in the regime is presented in summary tables.

The Netherlands offers an interesting context for the analysis of the mobility regime in a comparative setting, as it is characterised by a number of developments that are compatible with vision of more sustainable mobility systems – including the co-existence of multiple regimes and transportation modes (and a particularly strong share of cycling), and the concentration of urban settlements.1

We here provide a summary and conclusions by reviewing the extent of lock-in and tensions of the described regimes (see full report for detailed explanations). These are presented in separate tables for the prevailing automobility regime and the two sub-regimes that were considered, i.e. public transport and cycling, at the end of this Executive Summary. We first report an overall assessment of regime stability in the following paragraphs.

The existing automobility regime in the Netherlands is deeply entrenched and relatively stable. It is stabilised by reinforcing initiatives and institutions that contribute to existing lock-in. These include: a powerful industry, continued technical improvements and sophistication, and supporting policies. Despite strong inherent stability, the automobile regime in the Netherlands is showing some signs of change. Recent trends point to increasing recognition of external pressures and challenges by the automobile industry itself, with greater attention to environmental and safety issues, innovation strategies geared towards lesser emissions (catalytic converters), fuel efficiency improvements, the exploration strategies with different alternative fuels, and the emergence of new business models for mobility. The emission intensity of new cars is steadily decreasing.

However, there are also signs of change ahead, as the prevailing automobile regime is increasingly being challenged on environmental, convenience, safety, economic, and technological grounds. Most responses so far, however, are currently met by regime incremental responses. Furthermore, there seems to be a disinterest in car ownership among younger people, which has the potential to challenge the dominant automobility regime.

Overall, public transport is an integrated and coherent affair in the Netherlands with a strong role for public planning and harmonisation. The Netherlands is striking in its ability to retain

1 Furthermore, we have already seen in D2.1 that “the Netherlands presents an interesting context for experimentation in the mobility domain, and is positioning itself at the cutting edge of many of the innovation presented in this report, providing a ‘test-bed’ for niche experiments and their development”.

public control over public transport (from national government down to municipality), which is one main reason why lasting support and continuity can be expected. Multimodality has been successfully supported (e.g. through integration and simplification of ticketing and fares; increasing ease of connection between modes of transport). To date the emerging issues have been successfully addressed as they have emerged.

The Netherlands has the highest cycling rate in Europe; cycling is culturally deeply embedded and has profited from successful policy interventions. The Netherlands has a well-established extensive, safe and convenient cycling infrastructure network, all of which contributes to a strong stability of this regime. In recent years, e-cycling has been replacing some far-distance conventional bicycle journeys.

The Netherlands is striking as a leading example in terms of the highly stable role of cycling, its integration in landscape, infrastructure, culture and lifestyle. The co-existence of cycling with other mobility modes in urban centres and for short-distance commuting is unprecedented in Europe, perhaps with the exception of Denmark. These two countries are decades ahead in the integration of cycling as a credible mainstream mobility alternative, and have accumulated a wealth of technical, administrative and policy experience in how to deal with this mode.

Automobility regime

Lock-in, stabilising forces Cracks, tensions, problems

External landscape pressures

Culture of the age (individualism, private ownership, etc.)

Precedence of economic rationale

Infrastructure: Sunk costs; planning patterns that favour commuting

Ageing society (more older citizens with reduced autonomous mobility capacity)

Globally ever-growing automobility

Environmental awareness (especially, pressures to reduce GHG emissions)

Revitalisation of sustainable alternatives

Rising fuel prices; debates on Peak oil;

Congestion, leading to inconvenience and air pollution

Information society

New forms of mobility services as growing alternative to conventional car ownership

Ageing society (new, specialised demand pockets)

Technology and market developments

STRONG

Market segmentation: greater diversification of models; greater price ranges; more efficient vehicles (incremental changes)

Incremental innovations to improve ICE performance: improved engine performance; greater in-car ICT; and safety devices

Better environmental performance of

WEAK/MODERATE

Indications of a ‘saturation’ of the car market in the Netherlands

Signs of changing mobility patterns in urban cores

new vehicles

ICT: improved performance (e.g. ABS); user interface and convenience; entertainment.

Safety and comfort improvements

Actors and Institutions

STRONG

Powerful (global) automobile industry that ensures continued attractiveness of car and creates barriers for introduction of new technologies; some leading Dutch companies involved in global supply chains

Petrol suppliers and distributors (especially Shell) are crucial actors in the Netherlands

Turbulence in the automobile industry could lead to ‘greening of cars’, hence incremental changes

WEAK/MODERATE

Turbulence in the automobile industry could lead to radical transformation (new engines, infrastructures, forms of ownership and organisation, etc.) either through new fringe players or absorption by automobile industry

Users STRONG

Socio-cultural preference for the car; normalcy of ways of life based on the car (reinforced by advertising, policy objectives, and future scenarios)

MODERATE

Potential disinterest or unaffordability among younger people

Policy-makers

MODERATE

Recent policy developments—in difficult economic times—have been reinforcing the automobility regime, e.g.: more and wider roads to tackle congestion problem; ‘commuter compensation’ which encourages commuting

Environmental policies—especially to tackle air pollution—introduced successful ‘end-of-pipe’ or ‘incremental add-on’ solutions (e.g. catalytic converters), but do not address climate change challenges frontally

POTENTIALLY STRONG

Ambitious decarbonisation objectives (currently met, however, predominantly through incremental changes, e.g. transport efficiency and energy efficiency in vehicles)

CO2 labelling scheme for cars (implemented at EU level in 2011), making carbon-efficiency explicit to consumers

High fuel taxes

Parking and driving restrictions in urban areas

Public debate and opinion

STRONG

Society is still highly dependent on the car (or partly perceived to be); Individualism, private ownership, a strive for independence, and other ‘modern-day’ societal trends and norms

STRONG

Environmental awareness, health concerns, urban lifestyles, etc.—especially among young people—are showing moves away from automobility, supporting in particular

are reinforcing this perception cycling

Social movements, NGOs, scientists

STRONG (but highly localised in city centres)

From the 1970s onwards, activists have been challenging pro-car urban planning (in city centres), reclaiming urban cores and seeking benefits in terms of urban life, health and environment, which influenced e.g. the development cycling infrastructure

Overall assessment

STRONG MODERATE

Public transport regime



STRONG

Public transport is thoroughly developed in the Netherlands

Rail is the main public transportation means for long-range mobility (its network covers most of the national territory and all major cities)

Buses share infrastructure elements with cars, which strengthens their existence and gives them flexibility in planning and operation (as opposed to the rail)

As the bus system depends on the same infrastructure as cars, it is relevant for niche experiments with e.g. alternative engines and fuels (potential incremental ‘green’ changes)

There have been important efforts to integrate public transport (e.g. making connections between rail and buses easier) and support multimodality (e.g. park and ride; cycle sheds at train stations)

Ticketing simplification and reliable travel information

WEAK

Railway: In 2001, a series of infrastructural failures and strikes caused user dissatisfaction. (since then, however, quality of service has been improved)

Buses suffer from a somewhat negative cultural representation, i.e. ‘people transport’, slow, infrequent, etc.


STRONG

Although public transport concessions have gradually been opened to tenders,

WEAK

Multiple service operators at local level since liberalisation

the government retains the responsibility for the infrastructure

Mainline railway services are overwhelmingly operated by a single company: Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) which faces literally no competition (Provincial and regional railways are operated by different companies)

Users STRONG

Due to relatively high standard of service, public transport has a good reputation among users

Students make up a large percentage of public transport users

WEAK

In the early 2000s, some issues caused user dissatisfaction (see above)

Policy-makers

STRONG

Public transport is seen as an area of public utility for which lasting support and continuity can be expected

Policies aim at improving accessibility; provide diverse options; improve overall wellbeing; and maintain high comfort and safety record. Also efforts are made to increase reliability and frequency of service as well as to geographically expand the network. These policies implicitly aim to attract more users

Financial incentives to encourage public transport use (often, these lead to a shift from soft modes and to higher intensity of travels)

MODERATE

In line with spatial planning strategies (compact city; network of cities), urban cores have been stronger connected through railways and highways, which partly led to longer travel distances and partly also reinforced car usage


STRONG

Public transport has a good reputation based on its well-functioning

WEAK

The public transport system does not seem to be currently experiencing negative or challenging public debates and opinions

Overall assessment

STRONG WEAK

Cycling regime



STRONG

High-density territorial organisation and dedicated infrastructure (comprehensive network of bicycle paths)

Integrated traffic planning

Cycling generates a major commercial market (more than 1 million bicycles sold yearly)

Rental service operated by NS (‘OV-fiets’), with 180,000 members in 2014

MODERATE

E-cycling has contributed to overall increased cycling rates in recent years but, in part, been replacing conventional bicycle journeys (rather than car journeys)


STRONG

Civic society is largely supportive of cycling

Bicycle manufacturers; know-how

n.a.

Users STRONG

Cycling is widespread in the Netherlands, contributing to 26% of total journeys and 50% of journeys between 1 and 2.5 km

Deeply seated in individual habits and daily practices

Age, gender, or social background seem to not influence bicycle use, at least in Amsterdam

WEAK

Bicycle theft is a problem (nearly 750,000 thefts per year)

Safety concerns, but also safest country for cycling

Policy-makers

STRONG

Cycling policy (implemented mainly by municipalities) is a major reason for success of cycling in practice

Infrastructure policy, i.e. improvements of infrastructure quality (improved lanes, parking spaces, safety, etc.) are key

Incentives like the cycle-to-work scheme (with financial rewards) have been implemented

n.a.


STRONG

Cycling has a long-standing cultural acceptance and the bicycle is globally a

WEAK

Cycling is associated with danger (although cycling in the Netherlands is

cultural reference for the Netherlands

Cycling is considered beneficial for the environment, health, etc. and associated with flexibility

very safe compared to other places, largely due to infrastructure arrangements) and, in parts, with inconvenience


STRONG

From the 1970s onward, environmental activists and cycling clubs successfully challenged pro-car urban planning and through lobbying achieved the rollout of large-scale cycling infrastructure

n.a.

Overall assessment

STRONG

The Netherlands has the highest cycling rate in Europe; cycling is culturally deeply embedded and has profited from successful policy interventions. The Netherlands has a well-established and safe cycling infrastructure network, all of which contributes to a strong stability of this regime. In recent years, e-cycling has been replacing some far-distance conventional bicycle journeys.

WEAK

Highly stable role of cycling in the Netherlands, integration in landscape, infrastructure, culture and lifestyle.

Contents

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Mobility domain – some general remarks .................................................................... 1

1.2 The personal land-based mobility regime in the Netherlands ...................................... 1

1.2.1 Configurations, multiple systems and interactions ................................................ 1

1.2.2 Data-sources ........................................................................................................... 4

1.2.3 Report structure ...................................................................................................... 4

2 Overall system trends and regime characterisation ............................................................. 5

2.1 Regime characterisation ................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Longitudinal system development ................................................................................ 6

2.3 Environmental performance.......................................................................................... 7

3 Main landscape developments influencing the system ........................................................ 8

3.1 Main destabilising pressures ......................................................................................... 8

3.2 Main stabilising landscape aspects ............................................................................... 9

4 Development in the car-based regime in the Netherlands ................................................. 10

4.1 Technology and market developments ....................................................................... 10

4.2 Actors and institutions ................................................................................................ 13

4.2.1 Main actors and their positioning ........................................................................ 13

4.2.2 Policy ................................................................................................................... 16

5 Development in the public transport regime in the Netherlands ....................................... 19




5.2.2 Policy ................................................................................................................... 24

6 Development in the cycling regime in the Netherlands ..................................................... 26




6.2.2 Policy ................................................................................................................... 28

7 Conclusions: Stability, tensions, and regime improvements ............................................. 30

7.1 Automobility regime ................................................................................................... 30

7.2 Public transport regime ............................................................................................... 32

7.3 Cycling regime ............................................................................................................ 33

References ................................................................................................................................ 36

1

1 Introduction

The purpose of this document is to provide an analysis of stability and tensions in the incumbent socio-technical regime(s) in the mobility domain in the Netherlands, as part of PATHWAYS D2.2.

We first provide an overview of the prevailing mobility domain in the Netherlands, and a rationale for focusing specifically on individual land-based mobility. We also discuss the presence of subaltern regimes, and their relationship to the prevailing regime. The bulk of the document describes the prevailing regime(s), focusing on main developments and tangible system elements, as well as on active social groups and intangible regime elements.

The analysis presented in this report is structured around two main research questions:

1) What are the main external landscape developments that affect the Dutch mobility regime?

2) Do external pressures and internal problems lead to tensions and destabilisation of the Dutch mobility regime? Or is the regime still fairly stable, with (most) actors focusing on incremental change?

1.1 Mobility domain – some general remarks

Personal mobility distinguishes itself from other societal functions for two main reasons: 1) in most cases, mobility is not done for its own sake, but rather as a ‘derived demand’ in order to reach places (work, home, shops, city centre, etc.), and 2) personal mobility practices require the active involvement of users, and hence direct interaction with transportation devices (e.g. driving a car, riding a bicycle, taking the bus or train). Modern transportation modes furthermore rely on large infrastructures (roads, rail networks, etc.) that are shaped by the traffic that they sustain.

Since the advent of the automobile in the twentieth century, personal mobility practices have become dominated by petrol-based cars and, in turn, been shaping urbanisation modes and supporting infrastructures (streets, roads, highways, etc.) (Geels 2005). The prevailing automobile (with internal combustion engine (ICE)), however, coexists with other forms of mobility that have existed for a long time (trains, buses, trams, cycling, walking, etc.), and is increasingly being challenged on environmental, convenience, safety, economic, and technological grounds. Because of our interest in current and prospective transitions, we begin our analysis with the automotive personal mobility regime.2

1.2 The personal land-based mobility regime in the Netherlands

In this section, we give an overview of the Dutch mobility domain, its main characteristics, and its interaction with other domains. Based on this, we provide a justification for narrowing down our analytical focus.

The Netherlands, despite not having a major indigenous car manufacturer and despite the substantial role of other modes of transportation, remains amongst the most automobile-intensive countries in Europe in terms of distance travelled (over 80% of land-based personal mobility (KiM 2013)).

1.2.1 Configurations, multiple systems and interactions

While the automobile is clearly the mode of choice when it comes to overall distance travelled, the picture becomes less clear when looking at individual journeys, their motives,

2 By focusing on personal land-based mobility, we exclude 1) the transportation of goods, and 2) other forms of mobility (airplanes, ships, etc.).

2

and characteristics (see Figure 1, with the automobile accounting for around 50% of all journeys). In the Netherlands, 70% of all personal journeys are under 7.5km.3 In this range, the car and the bicycle constitute an equal part of all journeys, with circa 35% (KiM 2013:26). Despite the Netherlands being one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, average commuting time to work is the highest in Europe (Kozluk 2010).

Figure 1: Modal split of inland passenger transport in the Netherlands in 2012, number of journeys (left) and passenger-kilometres for individuals over 12 years of age (right) (KiM 2013)4

However, journeys over 10km account for 25% of all journeys and for 80 % of all personal distance travelled (KiM 2013:26). Most of land-based personal distance travelled is for two purposes: leisure and recreation (circa 80 billion km) and commuting to work (circa 50 billion km). Both figures have risen since the 1980s (KiM 2013).

While automobility is the dominant mode of land-based personal mobility (representing over 70% of personal distance travelled and over 50% of individual journeys in the Netherlands, (Figure 1), it coexists with a number of alternative mobility modes. These can be seen as separate, subaltern, socio-technical systems. The Netherlands are a pioneer in the field of public transport,5 and a lead market for cycling.6 These configurations can hence be interpreted as subaltern regimes that co-exist with the automobility regime: the slow mode regime and the public transport regime ( Figure 2). In this report, we focus on cycling as contribution to slow-mode mobility and do not analyse walking. The rational for this focus is the Netherlands representing a particular ‘success story’ when it comes to cycling.

3 It also means that discussing transitions away from automobility in the Netherlands is fundamentally different from other contexts with less intensive land use such as the USA and Australia. 4 Legend (from top left to bottom right): car; train; bus/tram/metro; moped; bicycle; walking; other. 5 Historically, many innovations in timetable management, ticketing and traffic signals have emerged in the Netherlands. 6 These subaltern regimes will be considered in the frame of a regime analysis in D2.2.

3

Figure 2: Schematic representation of interlinkages between regimes and sub-regimes in land-based personal mobility

Relationships between sub-regimes may take different forms (in terms of shared elements, mutual exclusion, complementarity, etc.), and evolve over time (see Table 1).

Table 1: Overlaps between subaltern mobility regimes and the automobility regime

Technical Industry Infrastructure Policy Socio-cultural

Bus partly shared (dimension change)

partly shared (some dedicated actors)

shared & exclusive (dedicated lanes)

shared (road policy) & exclusive (public transport)

exclusive (public transport)

Train exclusive exclusive exclusive exclusive (public transport)


Tram exclusive exclusive exclusive & shared (in cities)



Cycling exclusive & partly shared (tires)

exclusive shared (roads & streets) & exclusive (dedicated lanes)

??? shared (individual/freedom) & exclusive (low-tech, low speed)

Walking exclusive exclusive exclusive (dedicated path) & shared (crossings)

exclusive shared (individual/freedom) & exclusive (no-tech, low speed)

With the exception of walking, all the modes considered above have emerged in a relatively short time span (1860s-1930s), and have partly built on each other’s trajectories (Geels 2002)—with more or less success. These subsidiary regimes cannot really be considered as niches—although this might be tempting from an ecological point of view as they represent smaller specialised markets – demand pockets—but rather as fully formed regimes of smaller relative importance. That is not to say that major niche innovations in the mobility domain

4

cannot position themselves vis-à-vis such regimes of lesser importance and bring about a prospective transition. These mobility modes (subaltern regimes) are also readily-available alternatives to automobility (not without their drawbacks, which may explain different context-dependent penetration rates), the relative importance of which is likely to increase with restrictive policies on the car. Multi-modal mobility is likely to gain importance as individuals seek alternatives to automobility yet need to combine long- with short-range trips. At present, multi-modal journeys in the Netherlands mostly combine intercity rail travel with other forms of transportation (around ½ walking, ¼ cycling, ¼ other public transport and 5% automobile) (KiM 2013:34).

1.2.2 Data-sources

The research conducted for this report was empirically challenging as it addresses multiple dimensions, i.e. techno-economic, socio-cognitive, and political ones. Quantitative information for ‘tangible’ system elements was collected from official statistical sources and other openly available publications. Qualitative data and interpretations draw on the knowledge of the analysts who are sector experts and secondary sources (books, articles, and reports), complemented with primary sources (policy documents, newspapers, trade associations, consumer information portals, etc.). This heterogeneous data was integrated in order to construct an interpretive analysis.

1.2.3 Report structure

The report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 describes overall system characterisations, trends and longitudinal developments, which positions the different sub-regimes and their contribution to environmental improvements over time. Chapter 3 identifies the main external landscape developments that affect the electricity regime. Chapter 4 describes longitudinal developments in the Dutch automobility regime. Chapters 5 and 6 do the same for the Dutch Public transport and slow modes regimes, respectively. Chapter 7 provides conclusions on stability and cracks in domestic heat in the UK, with attention to both sub-regimes considered.

5

2 Overall system trends and regime characterisation

2.1 Regime characterisation

Figure 3 shows the main elements of land-based personal mobility—centred on automobility —with specific emphasis of technical components. The prevailing land-based mobility regime is locked into a configuration that is based on highly defined core technologies (oil-based, Budd-type chassis, etc.), a mature manufacturing industry that is constituted of a few powerful actors and has developed around related core competences and economies of scale, as well as a business model that is based on the sale of cars to private owners, with more or less diversification and specialisation according to national market differences. The infrastructure (roads, highways, petrol supply and distribution networks, etc.) is deeply embedded in our landscapes, urbanisation patterns, and the structural organisation of everyday life. It is sustained by powerful industries (oil, construction, etc.). The car is viewed as the most convenient form of mobility; it is supported by deeply entrenched habits and routines, and supports a number of practices that have emerged along its development trajectory (commuting, weekly supermarket shopping, road tourism, etc.). Land-use and transportation policies have traditionally encouraged the expansion of the automobile and supporting road infrastructure although this rather unconditional support is somewhat dwindling in the face of emerging societal problems (climate change, air pollution, safety, congestion, etc.). Culturally, the car does, however, remain a powerful symbol of freedom, and a marker of social status and identity. These aspects are reinforced by design and marketing objectives dominated by style and elegance in the aspirational higher market models.

These highly entrenched technological, industry, and socio-cultural elements jointly contribute and reinforce the stability of the automobility regime and its resistance to change (Geels 2005, Elzen et al 2004, Nykvist and Whitmarsh 2008), despite a number of challenges and contestations.

Figure 3: Elements from the socio-technical configuration in transportation (Geels 2002)

6

2.2 Longitudinal system development

Figure 4: Personal mobility in the Netherlands according to transportation mode 1985-2012, billion passenger-km (KiM 2013)7

In the Netherlands, “automobile dependency and the national passenger automobile trips have increased exponentially between 1960 and 1970” (Alpkokin 2012:543), with a more moderate increase in automobility from the 1980s (KiM 2013). Nonetheless, automobility—the main contributor to land-based personal mobility in the Netherlands—continued to grow at a steady rate throughout the 1980s, and stabilised from 2005 (Figure 4). Car ownership also continues to grow: from 0.40 cars/inhabitants in 1985 to 0.47 cars/inhabitants in 2012 (KiM 2013). Figure 5, which shows the longitudinal development of the car stock (personal and company cars) in the Netherlands, does, however, point to a potential market saturation.

Figure 5: Evolution of the Dutch car stock (RAI 2014:5)

7 Legend: auto(driver); bus/tram/metro; train; bicycle; auto(passenger); primary road network traffic(volume).

7

In the Netherlands, fuel prices have consistently risen over the past four decades, in particular since the 1990s, with a widening gap in relation to the consumer index (Figure 6: Evolution of the fuel price index (Euro 95 petrol) and consumer price index (RAI 2014:39)This is largely due to the successive introduction of fuel taxes, which are amongst the highest in Europe (Figure 14).

Figure 6: Evolution of the fuel price index (Euro 95 petrol) and consumer price index (RAI 2014:39)

2.3 Environmental performance

Environmental impact. Transport accounts for around 30% of total final energy consumption in the Netherlands (EC 2013), and for a rising proportion of total GHG emissions (approximately 42% total emissions in the Netherlands (EC 2013), and 25% in Europe), with a large dominance of road transportation—in particular personal automobility (Figure 7). Furthermore, automobility is a major source of local air pollution, especially in relation to congestion and lesser efficient driving patterns.

Figure 7: GHG from transport as part of total GHG emissions in the Netherlands (EC 2013)

8

3 Main landscape developments influencing the system

A number of long-term dynamics are affecting the development of mobility regimes, and the current prevalence of the car. These dynamics can influence established socio-technical trajectories both negatively (destabilise) and positively (stabilise).

3.1 Main destabilising pressures

The main destabilising pressures bearing on the automobility regime include 1) pressures for environmental change (cutting back on GHG emissions and local air pollution), 2) the rising price of oil, 3) increasing congestion, 4) safety, and 5) ICT developments. These societal and economic issues are challenging the socio-cultural and policy legitimacy, practical efficiency, and economic viability of established mobility arrangements. They are likely to contribute to shaping the future of mobility.

Environmental awareness. Following long-standing activism to bring environmental problems to the fore of public and policy debates, there are indications that Europeans are changing their attitudes towards the environment, and specifically towards transport. Climate change is increasingly perceived as an important issue (Eurobarometer 2009), along with other transport-related problems such as congestion and air pollution). However, increasing awareness about causes, consequences and mitigation options does not necessarily lead to a re-evaluation of individual behaviour, which still is (or perceived to be) highly dependent on automobility. Furthermore, there are indications that the economic downturn since 2008 has led to a relative decrease of attention to climate change and of the valuation of its seriousness.

Revitalisation of sustainable alternatives. While traditional transport policy has tended to support technological solutions (perhaps owing to strong industry lobbying and the preference for ‘win-win’ approaches), there are signs of this changing: The focus seems to be shifting away from vehicle emissions “to consider a broader range of environmental, economic and social dimensions of mobility such as energy and resource use in manufacturing, and ‘liveability’ for citizens” (Nykvist and Whitmarsh 2008:1377-8) as can be seen in the European Commission's White Paper on the Future Common Transport Policy. This suggests to jointly support sustainable forms of mobility and address the unsustainability of current configurations. New forms of mobility are emerging worldwide, including in the Netherlands (see PATHWAYS D2.1). Along with policy support for environmentally leaner solutions, more sustainable alternatives to the car are generating momentum. This trend seems to install itself as a long-term challenge for the automobile regime.

Peak oil, fuel price, fuel taxes. The rising price of oil and fuel (Figure 6), and the ongoing debate about peak oil have also been playing a major role in challenging the viability of automobility, and oil-fuelled mobility more generally, which is exacerbated by the relatively high level of fuel taxation in the Netherlands.

Congestion. Infrastructures are also experiencing pressure, especially through congestion on motorways surrounding to major cities. In the Netherlands, commuter congestion has increased by an estimated 70% over the last decade, with no clear sign of decrease (Kozluk 2010). This has obvious consequences for people’s convenience and increases the changes of air pollution. Congestion and related unreliability of travel time can have economic and behavioural consequences on user preferences for modes of transportation.

Information Society. The instalment of ICT as a prime motor of technological change since the late 1980s has led to an Information Society, which comes with major promises in terms of: dematerialisation; changes social interaction patterns (flexibility, remote communication); and a highly developed service economy and data-rich process optimisation. All of these factors are potentially challenging the context of the prevailing automobility regime and

9

underlying business models, as well as opening up space for new actors to enter the mobility domain (see also PATHWAYS D2.1).

Mobility services. New forms of mobility consumption are emerging. Car-sharing and car clubs, for instance, offer an alternative to traditional automobile vehicle ownership. They propose a shift from mobility consumption based on material ownership to mobility as a service: private mobility on demand. Individuals can hire a vehicle from a fleet operator or from a community of individuals. While vehicle hire services have long been an important part of the mobility landscape—particularly for tourism and business purposes—we here focus on the more innovative, short-term access membership-based schemes that have emerged in recent years and offer greater convenience, proximity and instantaneity. This form of mobility is a growing alternative to conventional car ownership (see also PATHWAYS D2.1).

Ageing society. An ageing population is both posing new challenges and offering new opportunities for mobility, mainly due to a greater proportion of older citizens with reduced autonomous mobility capacity, and the extension of working and active life, beyond 65. This societal trend will continue to shape mainstream mobility preferences and markets as well as sustain new, specialised demand pockets for mobility services that move away from the existing car-based regime.

3.2 Main stabilising landscape aspects

A number of landscape developments are contributing to stabilise automobility and making it more difficult for alternatives to break through.

Culture of the age. Modernisation, globalisation, and current forms of capitalism have sustained the developments of cultural preferences for individualism, private ownership, and speed, which are favourable to the car as mobility option (Geels 2012). This comes with the new forms of independence, autonomy, and lifestyles that it has made possible (Zijlstra and Avelino 2012).

Precedence of economic rationale. The economic downturn since 2008 has shifted public and policy attention away from environmental problems. Furthermore, because transport and mobility are perceived as essential conditions for economic success, there is a certain wariness of imposing policy restrictions on car use.

Infrastructure. The high sunk costs of infrastructure development, and the high costs of any new infrastructure development further contribute to make automobility the default option for mobility planning. Urbanisation patterns since the 1970s have followed the increase in car use, in such a way that despite conscious efforts towards compaction in Dutch urban planning, urban patterns are by and large favourable to commuting from residential neighbourhoods to areas of concentrated economic activity.

10

4 Development in the car-based regime in the Netherlands

4.1 Technology and market developments

Automobility growth. On a global level, economic growth in emerging and developing countries is leading to an increased demand for mobility. A large part of this can be expected to be car-based. A continued trend towards higher mobility rates and longer journeys, with an increase of passenger mobility (pkm) by nearly 25% from 1995 to 2011 in Europe (EC 2013), contribute to favour automobility, in the absence of alternatives to long-range mobility without substantial convenience and flexibility loss. In the Netherlands, however, there are indications that this thirst for ever-greater automobility is levelling off (KiM 2013; see Figure 4). This stabilisation of car use growth and ownership has been interpreted by Van de Waard et al. (2013) as a sign of ‘saturation’ of the car system, which can mainly be explained by changing mobility patterns (especially younger adults) and the rise of the Information Society. The automobile industry is nonetheless trying to fend off these pressures via market and innovation strategies, addressing different threats.

Market segmentation. Van der Vooren et al. (2013) show that car manufacturers operating in the Dutch market have substantially changed their portfolio of products between 2001 and 2011. Three major trends are of interest here: greater diversification of models on offer; greater range in terms of prices; and a general trend toward more efficient vehicles. Figure 8 represents the segmentation of passenger vehicles in the Netherlands according to market class, which shows that nearly 40% of the Dutch car stock comprises Small and ‘Submini’ cars (segments A and B).

Figure 8: Passenger vehicle stock in the Netherlands, by market segment8 (RAI 2014:7)

8 Segments A to D correspond to ‘Submini’, Small, Lower Middle Class, Middle Middle Class, respectively. Market segments tend to increase in weight and/or horsepower.

11

In terms of fuel input, 79.2%, 17.1%, 2.5%, and 1.1% of the Dutch car stock is composed of petrol-fuelled, diesel, LPG, and hybrid cars, respectively (RAI 2014:8). However, the market share of fuel delivered for the domestic market reveal a different pattern with diesel, petrol, and LPG making up 55.5%, 40.6%, and 4%, respectively (RAI 2014:37).

Innovation strategies. The automobile industry’s current innovation strategy is to improve the technical performance of the prevailing design, meaning ICE, through reinforcing incremental innovations, rather than to seek more radical—and risky—forms of innovation. Preferred product innovations directions include: improved engine performance (energy efficiency); a trend towards greater in-car information and communications technologies (ICT); and safety devices (Geels 2012). Such innovations can be seen as ‘add-ons’ that locally improve performance and attractiveness or isolate issues in a piecemeal fashion, temporarily addressing contradictions (Wells et al. 2012), rather than questioning the viability of the regime and engaging with developing sustainable mobility solutions for which so many interlinked barriers (technological, infrastructural and institutional) remain (Farla et al. 2011).

Environmental performance of new vehicles. Figure 9 shows how successful the ‘Euro’ norms regulating air pollution from vehicles have been since their introduction in 1990, with polluting emissions radically decreasing from the late 1980s. The track record on CO2 emission is comparatively low. This is due to a number of factors, including a relatively high level of urgency with the acid rain issue, and costly but not systemically over-challenging mitigation technology, for which an ‘end-of pipe’ approach was possible (Hajer et al. 2012). It is important to note, however, that the car industries worldwide initially stalled and resisted any framing of the problem and its responsibility.

Figure 9: Trends in emission of CO2 and air pollutants from passenger cars in the Netherlands (Hajer et al. 2012:160)

Hajer et al. (2012) suggest that a similar emission limit approach is unlikely to be successful with CO2 emissions because decarbonising automobility requires systemic change (advanced

12

vehicle technologies such as EVs or hydrogen). They further suggest that associated costs are in comparison much higher than catalytic converters and that there is currently consumer reticence to pay for carbon emissions reductions. However, Figure 9 also shows that the CO2 emission intensity of new cars is slowly but steadily decreasing. Furthermore, there are encouraging signs that it pays off to reduce CO2 emissions (although there may be limits to how mainstream such changes can become):

“Manufacturers with relatively large reductions in CO2 emissions tend to perform better than manufacturers with relatively small reductions” (van der Vooren et al. 2013:112).

Figure 10: CO2 emission of new cars in Europe and the Netherlands (Hajer et al. 2012:161)

Integration of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). A long-standing trend towards the greater integration of electronic equipment in the car has led to improved performance (sensors and controllers, automatic transmission, ABS), user interface and convenience (dashboard, remote commands and controls, navigation systems, etc.), but also entertainment (on-board screens and devices). A number of safety and assisted driving and parking applications are also emerging. All these innovations enhancing the quality and convenience of driving have led to more attractive products, but also to greater interdependencies with the ICT industry.

Safety improvements. Significant improvements in road safety records in the Netherlands—from 45,000 accidents involving personal injury in 1990 to 11,000 in 2011 (EC 2013) —also strengthen the Dutch automobility regime. It is, however, important to note that safety and comfort improvements do typically lead to increased weight and size of vehicles and can hence get in conflict with fuel consumption objectives (Sprei et al. 2008).

13

4.2 Actors and institutions

4.2.1 Main actors and their positioning

The automobility regime is difficult to analyse from an actor perspective as much of the strategies and agencies are played out on a global scale, including the dominance of large supranational manufacturers and fuel supply, the globalised nature of manufacture and supply chains, and to some extent the globally rather homogenous marketing strategies.

A powerful industry. The maturity of the automobile industry and the deep-seated prevalence of the underlying regime mean that automobility has reached very high levels of comfort, convenience, economy and adaptation to specific needs. Qualified by fierce competition, the industry has diversified designs to satisfy a number of sub-markets by a high variety of models (from 2-person cars all the way to SUVs), which ensures the continued attractiveness of the car through market widening, but also creates barriers for the introduction of new technologies, which could typically propose only a handful of models (van Bree et al. 2010). In the Netherlands, more than 15 manufacturers (none of them Dutch) share the market (Van den Vooren et al. 2013).

Figure 11: Leading technological companies in the automotive sector in the Netherlands (FHA 2010:7)

There is no large Dutch car manufacturer but there are some leading Dutch companies in the automotive sector involved in global supply chains (Figure 11). These companies are

14

concentrated in the Southern and Eastern parts of the country, where they enjoy geographical proximity with the German supply chain and automotive innovation ecosystem. According to FHA (2010), the Dutch automotive sector has been moving towards greater coherence and maturity since 2002. A national industry federation was founded in 2002, publishing its vision of the sector’s future in 2006, and launching a number of high-tech initiatives. The Dutch automotive manufacturing sector involves the collaboration of a broad range of stakeholders (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Stakeholders in the Dutch automotive sector (FHA 2010:10)

Turbulence in the automobile industry and crossroads ahead. External pressures (environmental problems, saturating markets) and internal tensions (falling profit margins, fierce competition, etc.) have created difficult times for the automobile industry since the late 1990s. In this turbulent context, many strategic moves are occurring as the industry is in search for renewal opportunities, including 1) strategic partnerships and alliances between manufacturers (cf. Renault-Nissan, and more recently the short-lived GM-PSA, Peugeot-Mitsubishi, VW-Suzuki, etc.), and 2) diversification strategies in more risky innovation areas. These are interesting times. From an industry perspective, it is difficult to know how regime change is likely to unfold as it may involve one of the following paths:

1) Incremental change and adaptation. Wells et al. (2012) suggest that the current levels of pressure around the climate problem is overwhelmed by the sheer size and power of the automobile industry, which is likely to continue pushing for a ‘greening of cars’ trajectory, rather than more radical transformation.

2) Radical transformation. If techno-economic and socio-political pressures become overwhelming, and substantial momentum is gathered in favour of new forms of mobility, we could see a fundamental transition unfold, which could include new engines, vehicles, infrastructures, forms of ownership and organisation, services (Hyard 2013), norms and values, etc. (or any combination of the above). The lead actors driving such change could be:

15

2a) New fringe players. More radical innovation tends to come from new players, often stemming from outside the existing regime (see emerging trends in different niches described in PATHWAYS D2.1), or

2b) Absorbed by automobile industry. There is evidence of increasing interest from the traditional manufacturers to acquire new skills, competences and capabilities to cope with the demands for radical new forms of mobility. This is likely to occur through the acquisition of new companies dealing with radical mobility solutions.

FHA (2010), in a similar vein, suggests broadly two main adaptation strategies in the automotive sector: 1) a boost to developments already underway before the crisis (reducing vehicle weight, increasing the efficiency of ICE powertrains, cost reductions and more attention to global competitiveness, and 2) more radical change, involving paradigm shifts in the provision of mobility solutions (alternative propulsion technologies, redesign of supply chains, linkages between vehicles and infrastructure, new earning models for incumbents and new entrants).

Petrol suppliers. Petrol is a crucial part of automobility regimes, and oil-related corporate interests influence automobility patterns in terms of marketing, supply, distribution, and maintaining fuel prices within reach. The Netherlands has a large stake in global petrol extraction, refining and distribution as it hosts:

- a large supplier (Shell), with a substantial global market, and just under 20% of the Dutch market for fuel, and

- 18 main private fuel suppliers of which Shell, BP, Esso, Texaco, and Total are sharing most of the market (RAI 2014)

Users. Marketing and advertising by the main manufacturers and associations actively contribute to the reproduction of consumer patterns and the consolidation of their socio-cultural preferences. Hajer et al. (2012) observe that the dominant discourse promotes and reinforces car travel, and the normalcy of ways of life based on the car. They stress that advertising, policy objectives, and even future scenarios are almost always considering an important role for the car which further reinforces the stability of the automobility regime. Figure 13 provides some insightful demographics on mobility trends in the Netherlands. Particularly interesting is graph (a) which seems to point to a disinterest or perhaps unaffordability among younger parts of society. However, Wells and Xenias (2015) suggest that assuming cultures of automobility and related consumer preferences to be outdated may be misguided: Despite its overall decreasing functionality, the car remains appealing and might continue to do so if innovation strategies permit its renewal.

16

Figure 13: Contributions by different segments to the development of car mobility between 1995 and 2011. Source: KiM, based on National Travel Surveys (Van der Waard et al 2013:346)

4.2.2 Policy

Supporting policy. Traditionally, EU transport policy has focused on liberalisation and harmonisation (Nykvist and Whitmarsh 2008). The strategic-symbolic value of transport from an EU perspective can be illustrated by the ‘punch line’ of a recent EC publication:

“Creating jobs: Transport provides work for millions of Europeans. Generating growth: Transport is the lifeblood of the EU economy” (EC 2013).

The argument here is clearly oriented towards greater development of transport, irrespective of its environmental impact. Recent policy developments have also tended to reinforce—or, at least, refrained from challenging—the prevailing automobility regime, especially in difficult economic times. The congestion problem, for instance, has mainly been addressed as a rationale for increasing road infrastructure (more and wider roads), along with supporting alternatives that are not in direct competition with the car:

“The road network is reaching the limits of its capacity, especially in the morning rush hour, so keeping the Netherlands moving is a constant challenge. The construction of more and wider roads is seen as part of the solution; public transport and the bicycle are also important tools in meeting the need for mobility.” (V&W 2010:11).

The Dutch Government will invest over EUR 40 billion for the widening of roads and the addition of ring roads to tackle congestion by 2020 (Kozluk 2010). Road pricing, proposed in 2009 as a measure to cut down traffic and environmental pollution has been reject as it was deemed too ‘controversial’. Furthermore, the persistence of a ‘commuter compensation’ in the Netherlands tends to encourage commuting and greater work-home distances, and is hence counterproductive in terms of sustainability (Hajer et al. 2012). Overall, environmental policies and regulations have been carefully crafted so as to allow for improvements on the ICE and not to disrupt the existing regime too much (Orsato et al. 2012).

Environmental policy. In terms of environmental policies, there have been significant improvements with regards to air pollution, particularly with the introduction of new technologies such as catalytic converters, and minimum standards (Euro 1 to 5). The introduction of the ‘Euro’ standards to curb trans-boundary air pollution in 1991 have been very successful, as NOx, VOCs and PMs emissions have been curbed by nearly 70% between

17

1990 and 2010. This was largely through the acceleration of adapting catalytic converters—an ‘end-of-pipe’ or ‘incremental add-on’ solution that may have only limited potential in the face of current climate change issues (Figure 9).

However, the climate issue is still far from being frontally addressed. Climate change objectives have been set at European level to cut down CO2 emissions by the transport sector to 60% of 1990 levels by 2050 (EC 2011), while at the same time allowing for growing transport and mobility. This has been translated into a 16% transport emissions reduction target relative to 2005 by 20209 in the Netherlands. Meeting such decarbonisation objectives is an ambitious goal, and current strategies are mainly focusing on: 1) transport efficiency (infrastructure, planning, and ‘intelligent systems’); 2) energy efficiency in vehicles; and 3) alternative fuels and propulsion systems. A CO2 labelling scheme for cars was implemented at European level in 200110, making the carbon-efficiency of new vehicles explicit to consumers. The Dutch implementation, including a vehicle feebate linked to the labelling scheme in 2006 (van der Vooren et al. 2013), led to improvements in the propulsion efficiency of new cars, and especially to a widening of the range of car manufacturers’ portfolios with increased purchases of LEVs. The economic downturn is also contributing to cultural and behavioural change in favour of smaller and more efficient cars. So far, however, these efforts and initiatives have reaped only relative success: Car use continues to contribute to an increasing proportion of GHG emissions and local air pollution despite improvements in fuel intensity and GHG emission performance of new vehicles.

Automobile restrictive policies. Fuel taxes in the Netherlands are relatively high compared to other national settings in Europe (EC 2013), and have been implemented gradually since the early 1990s (Figure 14). Furthermore, a number of parking and driving restrictions in urban areas are challenging the functionality of automobility there.

Figure 14: Evolution of excise duty on fuel in the Netherlands (RAI 2014:43)

9 Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0136:0148:EN:PDF 10 EU Directive, 1999/94/EC

18

The high rate of fuel and vehicle taxes in the Netherlands, particularly in recent years, has made the country a European leader in terms of CO2 emissions, with the average CO2 intensity of new cars reaching 109.1 gCO2/km in 2013 (Transport and Environment 2014).

Challenges to the automobility regime are also creating more space for alternative modes of transportation in subaltern regimes (e.g. public transport, cycling, walking), especially in urban areas. This is a two-way process: The more users adopt alternative mobility practices, the more convenient and acceptable these alternative regimes become, and the lesser the car’s hegemony becomes in the multi-regime mobility scene.11 Over the last 30 years, however, most of the increase in public transport has not replaced automobile usage but rather short distance cycling, walking, and student mobility via monthly passes (Alpkokin 2012).

11 In the mobility domain, one should, however, keep in mind that mobility modes are often combined and overlapping, rather than mutually exclusive—whether in terms of infrastructure or in terms of individual practices—which complicates the identification of causal mechanisms in the adoption of alternative technological devices.

19

5 Development in the public transport regime in the Netherlands


Public transport is thoroughly developed in the Netherlands with a number of options filling different market segments. While train is mainly used for commuting purposes (with over 50% of trips for this purpose) (KiM 2013), the motives for bus, tram or metro uses are more varied. Every day in the Netherlands, 1 million journeys are made by train while 4.5 million journeys are made by bus, tram or metro (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2010).12 Public transport use varies significantly with respect to urban concentration, with most bus, tram and metro journeys being in the most urban areas.

Railways. Rail is the main public transportation means for long-range mobility, with a national network covering all major cities. Train is a functional option for travel between cities. With a large proportion of the population living in urban areas, train use is larger than in most European countries. Figure 15 shows a rise in passenger number on the main railways since 2011. 2001 was a low point where a series of infrastructural failures and strikes had led to user dissatisfaction. Since then, overall quality of service has been substantially improved. Mainline railway services are overwhelmingly operated by a single company: Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS). NS dominates train services, with nearly 95% of passenger-distance travelled, without competition on the mainline network while 21 local lines are leased by provinces and regions and have been opened to competition in 1999. Since then, they are since run by different companies (NS, Veolia, Connexxion, Arriva and Syntus) (KiM 2013).

Figure 15: Evolution of train use in the Netherlands, bn km (KiM 2013:40)

The train system is almost fully separated from the automobility regime although both have contributed to exponential growth in land-based mobility throughout the twentieth century and literally changed our relationships to the territory (e.g. travel, commute). The railway network covers most of the national territory with most mainlines being covered by NS, and secondary routes by a range of operators via regional and local railways lines (Figure 16).

12 The total population of the Netherlands is 16.5 million.

20

Figure 16: Railway network in the Netherlands (different operators are signalled with different colours, nodes represent major changeover hubs)

Tram. While having very little overlap with automobility, the tram system bears much resemblance to the train system. It operates, however, at a much more local level (mostly urban), implying regional or municipal oversight, and a much smaller scale (networks and passengers) although there is some flexibility such as the Rotterdam-The Hague train-tram line.

21

Buses. The bus system shares technical and infrastructure elements (roads, petrol fuel, ICE)13 and some industry actors with the automobility regime (industry, road maintenance authority, etc.) but falls under the umbrella of public transport in terms of dedicated policy (subsidies, pricing, zoning, relevant authorities)14 and symbolic representations (‘people transport’, slow, set line and frequency, relative reliability, etc.). It increasingly benefits from dedicated lanes avoiding congestion and better punctuality. The operators for regional buses are the same as for regional trains (with the addition of Q-Buzz since 2008) while the three largest cities are operated by single privatised municipal companies (GCB, RET and HTM for Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague, respectively). Bus routes and their relatively low infrastructural requirement provide much more flexibility in planning and operations than the rail. This makes buses a mode of choice for both urban and lesser populated areas. Buses cover much shorter distances than the main train lines, and operate at a much more local level. There have been important efforts in recent years to improve the integration of train and bus services and routes in order to avoid duplication and make connections easier.

Public transport integration and multimodality. The Netherlands provides an interesting exemplar of a highly integrated public transport system offering different modes across the territory. There is a long tradition of both urban planning and public transport management. A number of trends and processes are worth highlighting here:

1) the importance of multimodality as illustrated by the diversity of transportation modes used to and from train journeys (Figure 17), with cycling and light public transport (bus, tram metro) making up a high proportion.

Figure 17: Modes of transportation to and from train journeys in the Netherlands15 (Kim 2013:34)

13 This attribute makes bus systems (e.g. municipal) particularly relevant for niche-experiments with alternative fuels or engines, with a variety of learning and scaling up potentials at technological and infrastructural levels. 14 Regional authorities are responsible for bus, tram, metro and regional railway services on the basis of national frameworks and overall budgets. 15 Legend (from top left to bottom right): walking; walking (trend); cycling; car (driver); car (passenger); bus; tram; metro.

22

2) the development of dedicated infrastructure, particularly in terms of facilitating integration of railways with car and cycling (cycle sheds, park and ride).

3) concerted integration efforts between different public transportation modes. For instance, the ‘fishbone integration principle’ is sought for linking buses to mainline trains in more rural areas through ‘feeders’ (see right-hand of Figure 18)

Figure 18: Parallel versus integrated bus and train services (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2010:77)

4) Ticketing simplification: The introduction of universal ticketing and tariffs in gradual steps since the 1980s has led to highly efficient and convenient public transport in the Netherlands. More recently, the ticketless OV-chipcard has substantially improved ease of use (see below).

5) Reliable travel information on multiple platforms. The tremendous improvements and diffusion of ICT in recent years (e.g. the widespread use of smart phones) have allowed public transport operators to provide real-time travel information, which is greatly enhancing ease of use and passenger experience.



In line with European policies introduced in the 1990s, authority over public transport was transferred to provinces and urban regions. Public transport concessions were gradually opened to tenders (except in the major cities), opening up the market to a number of operators. The government, however, retains the responsibility for the infrastructure: ProRail (a national company) operates and maintains the railway infrastructure, while bus, tram, and metro infrastructure are most often owned and maintained by local municipalities (Figure 19). Relevant budgets are set out nationally.

While NS, which operates the mainline railways, is the largest public transport operator in the Netherlands, regional public transport is dominated by five companies: Arriva, Connexxion, Q-Buzz, Syntus and Veolia. A number of smaller newcomers have also emerged in recent years. The main cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague) operated their own public transport via mono-concession privatized companies GVB, RET and HTM, respectively (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2010:15).

23

Figure 19: Organisation and ownership of public transport in the Netherlands (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2010:15)

A small number of manufacturers supply trains and wagons. Railway regulations are largely national, including, for example, incentive measures for students.

Users. User experience and cultural aspects are highly dependent on the service provider and the quality of service it offers. Service quality has—despite some issues in the early 2000s—been of relatively high standard, resulting in a good reputation. In the Netherlands, the railways are the second preferred mode for long-range mobility (with 18 passenger-km in 2012, rising from 15 in 2000 (KiM 2013)), and do hence compete more directly with the car for such uses.

Figure 20: User satisfaction and disruptions to service on mainline railway services (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2010:29)

24

Students make up a large percentage of public transport users, due to a lack of alternatives for this group and student reduction tariffs. A relatively stable 20% of train journeys are related to education, while this figure is around 30% for bus/tram/metro transportation (KiM 2013).

5.2.2 Policy

Public transport is an integrated and coherent affair in the Netherlands, with a strong role for public planning and harmonisation. While concessions have been opened to tenders for the operation of services, the Netherlands is striking in its ability to retain public control over public transport (from national government down to municipalities). Public transport is clearly seen as an area of public utility for which lasting support and continuity can be expected.

Rationales. The main rationales for public policy related to public transportation in the Netherlands are to improve accessibility (e.g. though improved speed, reliability and predictability), to provide a diversity of options (and alternatives to car-based transportation in light of negative effects like congestion), to improve overall wellbeing, and to maintain a high comfort and safety record. These objectives have been set out in two main recent strategic policy documents: Nota Mobiliteit (2004) ‘Towards reliable and predictable accessibility”, and Mobiliteitsaanpak (2008) ‘Safely and smoothly from door to door” (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2010). An implicit objective of public transport policy in the Netherlands is to attract more users.

Planning. The Fifth Spatial Planning Memorandum (2000-2020) and the National Spatial Strategy (2004-2020), in a concerted effort to build stronger regions and dedicated urban centres, have emphasised the idea of “network of cities” and promoted compact urban development (Alpkokin 2012). In transport terms, as cities grow larger and more economically dynamic, this implies stronger connection of the urban cores through railways and highways, but also longer trips from city to city. This planning emphasis on networked compaction of cities and ‘poly-nodal regional development’ has hence led to greater distances travelled. In terms of infrastructure planning, the main current system design considerations are the development of parallel tracks (to increase reliability in case of partial system failures) and to multiply linkages and multimodal connections. In order to increase attractiveness of public transport, efforts are made to increase reliability and frequency of service, but also to expand the network and extend its geographical coverage.

Sustainable public transport. Public transport is always a leaner alternative to car use. The train is considered to lead to around 75% less CO2 emissions per passenger-km in the Netherlands. NS is planning a full transition to 100% green-powered electric trains by 2018.16 Public transport has had a pioneering role in trialling cleaner fuels in the Netherlands. A number of bus lines operate on hybrid or natural gas engines, and there are plans to experiment with biogas on a wide scale.

Encouraging public transport. Encouraging public transport use is seen as entailing environmental benefits from shifting mobility away from the car, as well as wellbeing from increased accessibility. The Netherlands has a long history of encouragement of public transport through financial incentives (e.g. free or reduced public transport) and extension of services. A number of ‘special fares’ have been introduced since the 1990s. A national student transport card grated free public transport for students from 1991. Following popularity, a number of restrictions have been introduced to its validity throughout the week.

16 http://nsjaarverslag.nl/jaarverslag-2014/s1438_reizigers/a1380_Duurzame-mobiliteit

25

A distinction between off-peak and peak, with reductions of up to 40% has had an important effect on shifting passenger loads (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2010). Such measures are, however, thought to have only limited effects in terms of moving away from the car. Instead, they are leading to a shift away from softer modes (cycling and walking) as well as to a higher intensity of travels by existing public transport users (e.g. greater distances travelled) (Hajer et al. 2012:159). These are counterproductive, unintended consequences.

Supporting multimodality. A number of measures are worth mentioning here in terms of active encouragement of effective multimodality in the Netherlands (see 5.1.):

1) Integration and simplification of ticketing and fares across public transport means. A national ticket, related to distance zoning, has bee introduced in 1980 and can be used in all bus, tram and metro as well as some rail services across the country. A similar system is in place specifically for the railways. More recently, thanks to improvements in ICT and logistics, a contactless electronic transport chip car (the OV Chipkaart) has been introduced, allowing universal access and ease of payments across all public transport services. The card can be topped up online or at dedicated points. This technology and supporting infrastructure has been generalised throughout the country, covering all users since July 2014.17

2) Increasing the ease of connection between rail and other means to personal transport. A substantial parking infrastructure has been developed around train stations. This concerns both car use (Park and Ride) and cycling (cycle sheds). The extent and size of cycle sheds in major Dutch railway stations is without precedent or international comparison. Since 2000, more than 100,000 unmonitored and more than 25,000 monitored cycle shed spaces have been created, and an additional 100,000 new spaces are being planned (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2010).

17 http://nsjaarverslag.nl/jaarverslag-2014/Actueel/

26

6 Development in the cycling regime in the Netherlands


Cycling is technologically very different from the automobile although it shares the same basic components (wheels, rubber tires, etc.), partly uses the same infrastructure (roads and streets), and is associated with notions of freedom and individuality. Because traditional bicycles are human-powered, it tends to be a mobility mode with range restrictions (typically under 10km). While cycling may be associated with danger and inconvenience in many national settings, a combination of long-standing cultural acceptance, high-density territorial organisation and dedicated infrastructure makes it a mobility mode of choice in the Netherlands, representing the highest cycling rate in Europe with 26% of all journeys (KiM 2013).

Dutch cities have long been seen as models for cycling developments throughout Europe (Oldenziehl and de la Bruhèze 2011). Interestingly, as can be seen from Figure 21, while bicycle use was very popular in the first half of the twentieth century, it has experienced a sharp decline from the 1950s to the 1970s throughout European capitals. This can be quite clearly attributed to pro-car urban planning. From the 1970s onwards, a countermovement emerged to reclaim urban cores and seek benefits in terms of urban life, health, and environment. Activists “demanded a regime shift from car-governed cities to public transport, bicycle-, and pedestrian-governed cities” (Oldenziehl and de la Bruhèze 2011:40). The development of cycling lanes infrastructure in Dutch and Danish cities have led to a larger number of cyclists.

Figure 21: Historical development in bicycle share in 9 European cities (de la Bruheze and Vervaart 1999).

There are 18 million bicycles in the Netherlands. This number is so large that bicycle-related congestion is common in some areas. Cycling generates a major commercial market with more than 1million bicycles sold yearly. 1.04 million bicycles were purchased in 2012, 16% of which were e-bicycles. In fact, e-cycling is thought to be the main reason for increased cycling rates in recent years (KiM 2013). Despite allowing for cyclists to cover far greater distances (beyond 10km), the advent of e-cycling does not seem to be replacing car journeys

27

but rather conventional bicycle journeys, especially over longer distances (KiM 2013). E-cycling seems to have led to more homogenous cycling speeds (as predominantly older e-cyclists are enabled to follow average cycling speeds of ca. 15km/h), and has thereby increased cycling safety. There are, however, exceptions with over-powerful e-cycles which are gradually being regulated.

Infrastructure. Perhaps the most enabling aspect of cycling support in the Netherlands is the infrastructure, which has raised the standards of safety and functionality of this mode. Accumulated experience with cycling infrastructure and integrated traffic planning across all modes have resulted in comprehensive and highly functional cycle lanes, which minimise conflicts between different road and street users (motorists, pedestrians, and public transport). The Netherlands hosts a comprehensive network of 35,000 kilometres of bicycle paths, including 1) bicycle paths that are physically separate from other traffic (e.g. by verge or hedge), 2) on-road bike lanes demarcated on the ground (these are gradually being replaced by separate bicycle paths in cities like Amsterdam), and 3) cycling highways, which are mostly for commuting purposes. These are wider in order to accommodate overpassing, of better quality, and largely devoid of crossings. As a result, the safety record of cycling in the Netherlands is the highest in the world, with only 1.1 fatalities per 100 million km cycled (Pucher and Buehler 2007). Figure 22 shows the relationship between bicycle safety and bicycle usage, which seems to suggest that greater safety comes with exposure. Supplementing this network of bicycle paths is an increasing number of cycle parking stations.

Figure 22: Relationship between bicycle safety and bicycle usage (:14)

Innovation. The 6% increase in cycling from 2000 to 2012 is mainly attributed to the advent of the electric bicycle (KiM 2013). E-cycling does not seem to be replacing car journeys but rather conventional bicycle journeys (see above).

OV-fiets is a cycling rental service operated by NS. It is aimed at making public transport more convenient by enabling users to cycle the last kilometres to their destination. 252 rental stations are available in train stations and around bus stops throughout the country. The

28

service has become successful in recent years, with 180,000 members in 2014, and over 1.5 million rides.18 The service is particularly popular with business passengers, who make up half of all customers (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2010:42).



National and local governments. Cycling policy in the Netherlands is thought to be a major reason for success of cycling in practice (see below). Cycling policy results from a combination of national and local government but municipalities are the main actor in implementing cycling policy:

“Traditionally, bicycle policy has primarily been the responsibility of municipalities. Municipalities are responsible for the majority of the facilities used by cyclists. This not only involves the road infrastructure, but also bicycle parking facilities at shops and schools. The local cycle path network is also a municipal responsibility.” (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2009:26).

Civil society. Civil society played an active role in the reinvigoration of a cycling culture in the Netherlands. More importantly, environmental activities, together with cycling clubs, successfully lobbied government and planning authorities, and achieved the rollout of a consistent cycling infrastructure (cycling lanes, cycle parking, etc.) throughout the country.

Users. Bicycle usage is widespread in the Netherlands, with an average ownership of 1.3 amongst the population of age to cycle. While cycling contributes to an astonishing 26% of total journeys, it is even more striking that cycling is the mode of choice for nearly 50% journeys between 1 and 2.5 kilometres (KiM 2013).

Socio-cultural aspect. Hickman (2013) evokes the existence of a deep-seated ‘cycling culture’ in the Netherlands. Cycling is an integral part of the Dutch landscape—urban and rural. The bicycle has become a cultural reference for Dutch cities throughout the world, contributing to its image, but also export of know-how. More importantly, the bicycle is deeply seated in individual habits and daily practices, and an inherent part of the social fabric. In Amsterdam, for instance, residents ride their bike at least once a week, and for a minimum of 20% of trips regardless of age, gender, or social background (Pucher and Buehler 2007).

6.2.2 Policy

Infrastructure policy. In reaction to the detrimental effects of car-centred urban developments in the 1950-1975, the Netherlands experienced a “massive reversal in transport and urban planning policies” (Pucher and Buehler 2008). In 1975, at a time where inner cities were experiencing a revival, a large-scale cycling policy was initiated that focused especially on the rollout of bicycle lanes and bicycle parking spaces. Iin the 1990s, a new wave of improvements was initiated via the ‘masterplan bicycle’ with focus on local initiatives to further raise the attractiveness of the bicycle through improved lanes, parking space, safety and reduced thefts (de Vos 2015). More recently, further improvements of infrastructure quality have been pursued. Overall, success is attributed to the “attractive design of roads and bicycle lanes together with promotion of this travel mode” (de Vos 2015:187).

Cycling lanes, rather than an environmental measure per se, have been implemented as a way to minimise congestion and conflicts between road and street users. The success of cycling policy can be linked to the quality of infrastructure, which can be measured via the bicycle Balance Score. Higher scoring municipalities—usually those with longer-term experience—

18 http://nsjaarverslag.nl/jaarverslag-2014

29

have higher bicycle usage shares than other cities (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2009).

Incentives. The Netherlands has developed a number of incentives to encourage bicycle use. These include tax exemptions via a cycle-to-work scheme as well as a tax-free commuting allowance, which financially rewards employees cycling to work (at EU 0.19 per km) (Kozluk 2010).

Bicycle theft is a serious problem. In 2006, around 10% of bicycles got stolen in Amsterdam (Pucher and Buehler 2007). Throughout the country, there are nearly 750,000 thefts per year (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2009). Increasing registration and engraving of bicycles as well as more frequent controls have been reducing the likelihood of theft.

30

7 Conclusions: Stability, tensions, and regime improvements

We here provide a summary and conclusions by reviewing the extent of lock-in and tensions of the described regimes. These are presented in separate tables for the prevailing automobility regime and the two sub-regimes that were considered, i.e. public transport and cycling.

7.1 Automobility regime


External landscape pressures

Culture of the age (individualism, private ownership, etc.)

Precedence of economic rationale

Infrastructure: Sunk costs; planning patterns that favour commuting

Ageing society (more older citizens with reduced autonomous mobility capacity)

Globally ever-growing automobility

Environmental awareness (especially, pressures to reduce GHG emissions)

Revitalisation of sustainable alternatives

Rising fuel prices; debates on Peak oil;

Congestion, leading to inconvenience and air pollution

Information society

New forms of mobility services as growing alternative to conventional car ownership

Ageing society (new, specialised demand pockets)


STRONG

Market segmentation: greater diversification of models; greater price ranges; more efficient vehicles (incremental changes)

Incremental innovations to improve ICE performance: improved engine performance; greater in-car ICT; and safety devices

Better environmental performance of new vehicles

ICT: improved performance (e.g. ABS); user interface and convenience; entertainment.

Safety and comfort improvements

WEAK/MODERATE

Indications of a ‘saturation’ of the car market in the Netherlands

Signs of changing mobility patterns in urban cores


STRONG

Powerful (global) automobile industry that ensures continued attractiveness of car and creates barriers for introduction of new technologies; some leading Dutch companies involved in global supply chains

Petrol suppliers and distributors (especially Shell) are crucial actors in the Netherlands

Turbulence in the automobile industry could lead to ‘greening of cars’, hence incremental changes

WEAK/MODERATE

Turbulence in the automobile industry could lead to radical transformation (new engines, infrastructures, forms of ownership and organisation, etc.) either through new fringe players or absorption by automobile industry

31

Users STRONG

Socio-cultural preference for the car; normalcy of ways of life based on the car (reinforced by advertising, policy objectives, and future scenarios)

MODERATE

Potential disinterest or unaffordability among younger people

Policy-makers MODERATE

Recent policy developments—in difficult economic times—have been reinforcing the automobility regime, e.g.: more and wider roads to tackle congestion problem; ‘commuter compensation’ which encourages commuting

Environmental policies—especially to tackle air pollution—introduced successful ‘end-of-pipe’ or ‘incremental add-on’ solutions (e.g. catalytic converters), but do not address climate change challenges frontally

POTENTIALLY STRONG

Ambitious decarbonisation objectives (currently met, however, predominantly through incremental changes, e.g. transport efficiency and energy efficiency in vehicles)

CO2 labelling scheme for cars (implemented at EU level in 2011), making carbon-efficiency explicit to consumers

High fuel taxes

Parking and driving restrictions in urban areas


STRONG

Society is still highly dependent on the car (or partly perceived to be); Individualism, private ownership, a strive for independence, and other ‘modern-day’ societal trends and norms are reinforcing this perception

STRONG

Environmental awareness, health concerns, urban lifestyles, etc.—especially among young people—are showing moves away from automobility, supporting in particular cycling


STRONG (but highly localised in city centres)

From the 1970s onwards, activists have been challenging pro-car urban planning (in city centres), reclaiming urban cores and seeking benefits in terms of urban life, health and environment, which influenced e.g. the development cycling infrastructure

Overall assessment

STRONG MODERATE

The existing automobility regime in the Netherlands is deeply entrenched and relatively stable. It is stabilised by reinforcing initiatives and institutions that contribute to existing lock-in. These include: a powerful industry, continued technical improvements and sophistication, and supporting policies. Despite strong inherent stability, the automobile regime in the Netherlands is showing some signs of change. Recent trends point to increasing recognition of external pressures and challenges by the automobile industry itself, with greater attention to environmental and safety issues, innovation strategies geared towards lesser emissions (catalytic converters), fuel efficiency improvements, the exploration strategies with different alternative fuels, and the emergence of new business models for mobility. The emission intensity of new cars is steadily decreasing.

However, there are also signs of change ahead, as the prevailing automobile regime is increasingly being challenged on environmental, convenience, safety, economic, and technological grounds. Most responses so far, however, are currently met by regime

32

incremental responses. Furthermore, there seems to be a disinterest in car ownership among younger people, which has the potential to challenge the dominant automobility regime.

7.2 Public transport regime



STRONG

Public transport is thoroughly developed in the Netherlands

Rail is the main public transportation means for long-range mobility (its network covers most of the national territory and all major cities)

Buses share infrastructure elements with cars, which strengthens their existence and gives them flexibility in planning and operation (as opposed to the rail)

As the bus system depends on the same infrastructure as cars, it is relevant for niche experiments with e.g. alternative engines and fuels (potential incremental ‘green’ changes)

There have been important efforts to integrate public transport (e.g. making connections between rail and buses easier) and support multimodality (e.g. park and ride; cycle sheds at train stations)

Ticketing simplification and reliable travel information

WEAK

Railway: In 2001, a series of infrastructural failures and strikes caused user dissatisfaction. (since then, however, quality of service has been improved)

Buses suffer from a somewhat negative cultural representation, i.e. ‘people transport’, slow, infrequent, etc.


STRONG

Although public transport concessions have gradually been opened to tenders, the government retains the responsibility for the infrastructure

Mainline railway services are overwhelmingly operated by a single company: Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) which faces literally no competition (Provincial and regional railways are operated by different companies)

WEAK

Multiple service operators at local level since liberalisation

Users STRONG

Due to relatively high standard of service, public transport has a good reputation among users

WEAK

In the early 2000s, some issues caused user dissatisfaction (see above)

33

Students make up a large percentage of public transport users

Policy-makers STRONG

Public transport is seen as an area of public utility for which lasting support and continuity can be expected

Policies aim at improving accessibility; provide diverse options; improve overall wellbeing; and maintain high comfort and safety record. Also efforts are made to increase reliability and frequency of service as well as to geographically expand the network. These policies implicitly aim to attract more users

Financial incentives to encourage public transport use (often, these lead to a shift from soft modes and to higher intensity of travels)

MODERATE

In line with spatial planning strategies (compact city; network of cities), urban cores have been stronger connected through railways and highways, which partly led to longer travel distances and partly also reinforced car usage


STRONG

Public transport has a good reputation based on its well-functioning

WEAK

The public transport system does not seem to be currently experiencing negative or challenging public debates and opinions

Overall assessment

STRONG WEAK

Overall, public transport is an integrated and coherent affair in the Netherlands with a strong role for public planning and harmonisation. The Netherlands is striking in its ability to retain public control over public transport (from national government down to municipality), which is one main reason why lasting support and continuity can be expected. Multimodality has been successfully supported (e.g. through integration and simplification of ticketing and fares; increasing ease of connection between modes of transport). To date the emerging issues have been successfully addressed as they have emerged.

7.3 Cycling regime



STRONG

High-density territorial organisation and dedicated infrastructure (comprehensive network of bicycle paths)

Integrated traffic planning

Cycling generates a major commercial market (more than 1 million bicycles sold yearly)

MODERATE

E-cycling has contributed to overall increased cycling rates in recent years but, in part, been replacing conventional bicycle journeys (rather than car journeys)

34

Rental service operated by NS (‘OV-fiets’), with 180,000 members in 2014


STRONG

Civic society is largely supportive of cycling

Bicycle manufacturers; know-how

n.a.

Users STRONG

Cycling is widespread in the Netherlands, contributing to 26% of total journeys and 50% of journeys between 1 and 2.5 km

Deeply seated in individual habits and daily practices

Age, gender, or social background seem to not influence bicycle use, at least in Amsterdam

WEAK

Bicycle theft is a problem (nearly 750,000 thefts per year)

Safety concerns, but also safest country for cycling

Policy-makers STRONG

Cycling policy (implemented mainly by municipalities) is a major reason for success of cycling in practice

Infrastructure policy, i.e. improvements of infrastructure quality (improved lanes, parking spaces, safety, etc.) are key

Incentives like the cycle-to-work scheme (with financial rewards) have been implemented

n.a.


STRONG

Cycling has a long-standing cultural acceptance and the bicycle is globally a cultural reference for the Netherlands

Cycling is considered beneficial for the environment, health, etc. and associated with flexibility

WEAK

Cycling is associated with danger (although cycling in the Netherlands is very safe compared to other places, largely due to infrastructure arrangements) and, in parts, with inconvenience


STRONG

From the 1970s onward, environmental activists and cycling clubs successfully challenged pro-car urban planning and through lobbying achieved the rollout of large-scale cycling infrastructure

n.a.

Overall assessment

STRONG

The Netherlands has the highest cycling rate in Europe; cycling is culturally deeply embedded and has profited from successful policy interventions. The Netherlands has a well-established and safe cycling infrastructure network, all of which contributes to a strong stability of this regime. In recent years, e-cycling

WEAK

Highly stable role of cycling in the Netherlands, integration in landscape, infrastructure, culture and lifestyle.

35

has been replacing some far-distance conventional bicycle journeys.

The Netherlands has the highest cycling rate in Europe; cycling is culturally deeply embedded and has profited from successful policy interventions. The Netherlands has a well-established extensive, safe and convenient cycling infrastructure network, all of which contributes to a strong stability of this regime. In recent years, e-cycling has been replacing some far-distance conventional bicycle journeys.

The Netherlands is striking as a leading example in terms of the highly stable role of cycling, its integration in landscape, infrastructure, culture and lifestyle. The co-existence of cycling with other mobility modes in urban centres and for short-distance commuting is unprecedented in Europe, perhaps with the exception of Denmark. These two countries are decades ahead in the integration of cycling as a credible mainstream mobility alternative, and have accumulated a wealth of technical, administrative and policy experience in how to deal with this mode.

36

References

Albert de la Bruheze, A.A., Vervaart, F.C.A. 1999. Bicycle traffic in practice and policy in the twentieth century.

Alpkokin, P., 2012. Historical and critical review of spatial and transport planning in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 29, 536-547.

van Bree, B., Verbong, G.P.J., Kramer, G.J., 2010. A multi-level perspective on the introduction of hydrogen and battery-electric vehicles, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77, 529-540.

Elzen, B., Geels, F.W., Green, K., Hofman, P.S., 2004. Sociotechnical scenarios as a tool for transition policy: an example from the traffic and transport domain, in: B. Elzen, F. Geels, K. Green (Eds.), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy, Edward Elgar Publishers, Camberley, UK.

Eurobarometer, 2009. Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change, Special Eurobarometer 313 / Wave 71.1 – TNS Opinion & Social.

European Commission, 2013. EU transport in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2013, European Union, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/doc/2013/pocketbook2013.pdf

Farla, J., Alkemade, F., Suurs, R., 2011. Analysis of barriers in the transition toward sustainable mobility in the Netherlands, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77, 1260-1269.

FHA (Federatie Holland Automotive), 2010. Vision for the Dutch automotive sector 2010-2020: From vehicles to mobility: driving for value.

Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study, Research policy, 31 (8), 1257-1274.

Geels, F.W., 2005. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17 (4), 445–476.

Geels, F.W., 2012. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography 24, 471-482.

Hajer, M., Hoen, A., Huitzing, H., 2012. Shifting Gear: Beyond Classical Mobility Politics and Urban Planning, in: Van Wee (Ed.) Keep Moving. The Hague: RLI, pp.151-178.

Hickman, R., Hall, P., Banister, D., 2013. Planning more for sustainable mobility, Journal of Transport Geography, 33, 210-219.

Hyard, A., 2013. Non-technological innovations for sustainable transport, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80, 1375-1386.

KiM (Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid), 2013. Mobiliteitsbalans 2013, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, available from www.kimnet.nl

Kozluk, T., 2010. How the Transport System can Contribute to Better Economic and Environmental Outcomes in the Netherlands, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 804, OECD Publishing.

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, 2009. Cycling in the Netherlands.

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, 2010. Public transport in the Netherlands.

37

Nykvist, B., Whitmarsh, L., 2008. A multi-level analysis of sustainable mobility transitions: Niche development in the UK and Sweden, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 75:1373-1387.

Oldenziehl, R., de la Bruhèze, A.A., 2011. Contested Spaces�Bicycle Lanes in Urban Europe, 1900–1995, Transfers, 1(2), 29-49.

Orsato, R.J., Dijk, M., Kemp, R., Yarime, M., 2012. The Electrification of Automobility. The Bumpy Ride of Electric Vehicles towards Regime Transition. In: Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G., Lyons, G. (Eds.), Automobility in Transition? A Socio-Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport. Routledge, New York.

Pucher and Buehler 2007. At the Frontiers of Cycling- Policy Innovations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany

Pucher, J., Buehler, R., 2008. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, Transport Review 28, 495–528.

RAI, 2014. Mobiliteit in cijfers 2013/2014, BOVAG-RAI Mobiliteit, Amsterdam.

Sprei, F., Karlsson, S., Holmberg, J., 2008. Better performance or lower fuel consumption: technological development in the Swedish new car fleet 1997–2002, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 13(2), 75-85.

Transport and Environment, 2014. CO2 emissions from new cars in Europe: Country ranking How national car tax systems helped boost sales of lower-carbon cars across Europe in 2013, available from http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2014%20TE%20cars%20CO2%20MS%20report_FINAL_compressed%20cover_0.pdf

V&W (Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management), 2010. Public transport in the Netherlands, available at: http://www.emta.com/IMG/pdf/brochure.pdf

de Vos, J., 2015. The influence of land use and mobility policy on travel behavior: A comparative case study of Flanders and the Netherlands, The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 8(1), 171-190.

van den Vooren, Alkemade, F., Hekkert, M.P., 2013. Environmental performance and firm strategies in the Dutch automotive sector. Transportation Research Part A 54, 111-126.

van de Waard, J., Jorritsma, P., Immers, B., 2013. New Drivers in Mobility; What Moves the Dutch in 2012?, Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 33:3, 343-359.

Wells, P., Xenias, D., 2015 (in press). From ‘freedom of the open road’ to ‘cocooning’: Understanding resistance to change in personal private automobility, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, available online first.

Wells, P., Nieuwhuis, P., Orsato, R.J., 2012. The Nature and Causes of Inertia in the Automotive Industry: Regime Stability and Non-Change. In: Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G., Lyons, G. (Eds.), Automobility in Transition? A Socio-Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport. Routledge, New York.

Zijlstra, T., Avelino, F., 2012. A Socio-Spatial Perspective on the Car Regime. In: Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G., Lyons, G. (Eds.), Automobility in Transition? A Socio-Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport. Routledge, New York.

country report 7 dutch mobility regime - pathways project · greater attention to environmental and...

Documents