Streetcar lines that widen the social gap

Urban policies strongly in favor of public transport have always been highly praised. These initiatives, generally designed to encourage users to give up their own vehicle to travel to urban centers, can however sometimes lead to less positive results.

This is one of the conclusions that sociologist Hanja Maksim, doctoral student at the Laboratory of Urban Sociology at EPFL (LaSUR), headed by Vincent Kaufmann, has reached. “For example, when the authorities decide to extend a streetcar line, so that it connects a suburb, they may not take into account the fact that the needs of the populations of these areas aren’t necessarily fulfilled by the project. In other words, this direct line to the center may not necessarily be what they need in their daily lives.” Even worse, according to the researcher, certain types of mobility developments – whether involving public transport or private vehicles – can increase the precarity of certain segments of the population. “People on modest incomes may be obliged to accept less secure and less convenient jobs, located far away from their homes, simply because an efficient way of getting there has been developed”, she explains.

For her thesis work, which she defended on Thursday evening, she focused on four agglomerations with very distinct characteristics. Geneva, Bern, Clermont-Ferrand and Grenoble were closely examined, and a panel of people living there were invited to give their input. “I concentrated on groups particularly affected by difficulties linked with mobility: elderly people, single-parent families, and people with low incomes”, continues Hanja Maksim.

Working in the field enabled her to highlight several paradoxes linked to the journeys of each person. As an example, the fact that towns tend less and less to favor cars, which however resist against all odds, thanks to their intrinsic advantages. But an even more important finding is that an increase in mobility is not necessarily what the people expect. “They can be compared to islanders”, notes the researcher. “What interests them most is not to be able to go anytime to the neighbouring islands, but rather to have everything that they need on their own island.” Translated into urban terms, this metaphor calls for policies that would aim to offer a broader diversity of activities in each district, and in particular enabling the creation of jobs. In reality, this calls for a closer cooperation between the offices dealing with mobility and those looking after spatial planning.

Does this mean that the urban planners and designers of the four towns studied have got it all wrong? “My work implies certain criticisms”, admits Hanja Maksim . “But I also bring an element of theory which enables us to reconsider these questions with more detachment: in particular, the concept of motility, theorized by Vincent Kaufmann, which isn’t satisfied with the use of the sole criteria of journeys and access. One also has to take into account the projects of the users, as well as their ability to make use of the offer at their disposal in the best possible way, and this faculty was highly developed in these groups of people.”

These parameters make up the “mobility capital” of each individual, and in the same way as with social or economic capital, this can reveal unsuspected inequalities.