In our previous module we provided a general overview of what urban mobility entails. However, like in many other fields, one of the keys to success and efficiency is the clear, precise and fundamental planning of organizational and practical measures. This allows all involved entities to harmonize their actions, to form a unified approach to identifying and solving mobility issues.

It is clear that such programs should include a description of current issues, the steps to address them, and the necessary means and timeframes for the implementation of those steps. Another important aspect is formulating the “mission” or the “vision” of those programs as accurately as possible. In this case, it is not enough, as surprising as it may sound, to simply state that the mission is to make urban mobility safer, more accessible, equitable and efficient for all layers of the population.

All those are, of course, important goals, but they can generally be attributed to any service provided or overseen by government institutions. For example, there is currently a global trend toward the electrification of vehicles or the widespread use of alternative energy resources in both private and public sectors. All these solutions can undoubtedly have a beneficial long-term impact on sustainable social development. However, the electrification of vehicles alone does not solve wholly solve the problems of urban mobility, even if such a goal is set in our adopted plan. In our mission statements, the points that are related to the underlying issues for the movement of people and goods should be written in LARGE letters. For proper planning, it is crucial to first understand WHY people move from one point to another in the city to determine HOW to organize that movement in the most efficient way possible.

Currently, planning often prioritizes the loudest complaints heard from the members of society, which are then consequently considered as the most important and urgent. However, in such cases, urban mobility planning leads to goals that have never been accurately reviewed or discussed. Both stem from the car-centric approach formed in the second half of the 20th century, which has resulted motorists becoming and continuing to be the main beneficiaries of current urban mobility systems. Their voice is more influential and louder, often forcing decision-makers to follow principles of satisfying this group’s complaints. This “noise” by this group’s lobbying sometimes intensifies, especially when it comes to fuel prices, parking fees or other types of transportation tariffs.

When political decisions are made based on such “noisy lobbying,” there is a high risk that the relevant institutions, without broader involvement, will set another priority goal for urban mobility – “to ensure the affordability of driving”.

These two spontaneously formed goals – “traffic without congestion” and “affordability of driving” – are undoubtedly reasonable and very important. However, both individually and together, they significantly deteriorate the quality of urban mobility planning in a city. Policies and plans based on these goals lead to large-scale road construction, providing a short-term solution but ultimately worsening the situation in the middle to long-term. A vivid example is the extensive road construction in Yerevan over the last decade, aimed at reducing congestion and ensuring a higher level of mobility. Although this new infrastructure connecting different parts of the city was intended to relieve traffic within a few years, it actually led to a sharp increase in the number of privately used vehicles, resulting in more widespread congestion and naturally, higher levels of complaints.

This leads to an important conclusion – WE NEED BETTER AND MORE ACCURATELY FORMULATED GOALS.

What can those goals be and what principles should be followed?

First of all, it makes sense to move away from the traditional approach of focusing on cars. After all, a car is just a means of transportation. When moving around in a city our goal is not the car itself, but the transportation of people and goods. This mindset leads to the following conclusion: “The fundamental goal of urban mobility planning should be the efficient movement of people and goods”.

Framing the goal in this way forces us to focus on more efficient forms of moving people, such as public transportation, which uses space much more optimally. The same applies to finding smart and accessible ways to transport goods and to achieve that, it is necessary to answer the following questions:

- Why do people need to move this much in the city?

- Where do they all go to?

And the answers are quite simple:

- People move to REACH certain places.

- They need to REACH their workplace, school, university, meetings with other people, entertainment venues and many other places.

Understanding this leads to another fundamental goal: “ensure the accessibility of all the places and activities that people generally need to go to”. This also makes us think about what steps need to be taken to ensure such accessibility. Shouldn’t the urban environment itself be designed in such a way that creates more opportunities for its residents without them having to excessively move around to certain destinations.

This can often mean that cities should rely on a mix of different land use types. Or, conversely, develop more towards clustering people and activities, especially in areas that are easily accessible by public transport, cyclists and pedestrians.

All the above approaches once again confirm that mobility planning cannot be separated from urban planning or city planning. ONLY in that case will it be possible to create such an environment that will almost be free from heavy traffic and congestions.