Mobility, emotion and political will

Lessons from Ghent Over the past decade in Ghent, mobility policy has been very central to the political debate. The circulation plan, implemented in 2017, kept through-car traffic out of the city, creating space for pedestrians and cyclists in a fast and inexpensive way. The plan itself was very simple. Around the existing car-free zone, six zones were demarcated, and driving from one zone to another by car can only be done via the ring road. The impact was huge. In a short period, the share of cycling rose from 22 per cent to 35 per cent, and the number of public transport users also increased more than expected. Air quality improved and the number of accidents fell by a third. For residents and visitors, the city became more pleasant. And Ghent continues to do well economically: Ghent has the lowest vacancy rate of commercial premises of any Flemish city and a thriving start-up scene. Besides the circulation plan, large investments were made in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure: in 10 years, we built 50 bridges, tunnels and underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists. The Ghent Cycling Embassy, founded in 2016, fuelled the cycling culture. Investing in car sharing led to decreasing car ownership in Ghent – against the trend in Flanders. In 2015, we recorded 1.2 cars per household, but by 2021 the number dropped to 1 per household. This reduces the number of parking spaces needed and frees up space for more greenery, benches or terraces. Ghent became an attractive case study for many European cities. From Bologna to Helsingborg, from Stockholm to Toulouse, numerous European cities studied the Ghent example. Whereas the cycling level of Copenhagen and Utrecht through infrastructure changes requires an immense budget and takes decades; it is virtually unattainable for many cities. In contrast, the ‘Ghent model’ seems attainable. Relatively simple circulation measures and plans lead to quick results. On top of that, limited but well-targeted infrastructure maximises the effect. Also, importantly, the cost of the Ghent circulation plan was very limited; for the price of a decent cycle bridge, we had a plan with a multitude of positive effects. “Mobility is emotional. Always.” This does not mean it is easy. While the slower path of infrastructure allows to delay and even avoid debate, the path of circulation plans lead to fierce and emotional reactions. In mobility policy, there is one constant: mobility and emotion are closely linked. Anyone pursuing an ambitious mobility policy is constantly confronted by it. Whether you introduce a circulation plan or scrap a parking space, there are always emotional reactions – just like accidents, incidents, traffic jams or the behaviour of other road users cause emotional reactions. Mobility is emotional. Always. It is clear why. In our super busy lives, we time our journeys almost to the second. Movements are chained to each other and to all our other activities. Any disruption has immediate consequences on the rest of our schedule, and unfortunately, such disruptions are common. A flat tyre, a defective rail signal, an accident on the motorway. “people perceive changes as negative rather than positive. Benefits are uncertain and certainties disappear” If everyday mobility is already so precarious, it should come as no surprise that people also perceive transformative mobility policies as disruptive, because a transformative mobility policy by definition intervenes in behavioural patterns. It changes the daily schedule of many people, and, from experience, people know that such changes bring inconvenience. So a mobility policy creates uncertainty, while people seek peace of mind, especially in our rushed society. A parking space in front of the door being scrapped and replaced by a bicycle shed means that a resident will have to carry their shopping a bit further. A new timetable for trams or trains brings an adjustment for your personal daily schedule. In recent years, I have noticed that people perceive changes as negative rather than positive. Benefits are uncertain and certainties disappear. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Since our mobility co-determines our lives, we often experience mobility choices as strongly values driven. If you tackle mobility habits, you change somebody's life - immediately raising questions like, "Isn't my life good enough? Why do you want to change my life? And who do you think you are?’. Such questions almost by definition result in emotional responses. If then separate groups emerge based on their position towards new policies, it becomes all the more threatening. A culture war looms. As long as cyclists were a small, less outspoken group, there seemed to be no problem for car users. Cyclists were somewhat naive yet sympathetic. But as cyclists and cargo bike riders grew into a larger and more assertive group in a number of cities, things started to change. For the more car-oriented, that large group of bike riders became a threat. They no longer accepted the motorists' privileged position, which immediately added a heavy emotional-cultural charge to the conflict. It became a generational conflict and a culture war. Not coincidentally, ‘cargobiker’ became a swear word for some. Soon, some spoke of ‘bicycle fundamentalism’. The emotionality connected to mobility changes makes it harder to implement policies. Protests occur, people dig in their heels and want to preserve the status quo. Emotionality becomes a cue for political and activist use. “The emotionality connected to mobility changes makes it harder to implement policies” The scheme is simple and recurrent. Mobility measures are announced, emotional reactions follow, and political parties start circling around like vultures, to pick up on that emotion and then put a megaphone on it for their own electoral gain. In this way, the debate often evolves into trench warfare. An emotionally-charged debate is the hardest thing there is. ‘Emotionalising’ the debate is easy, but finishing it afterwards to everyone's satisfaction is another matter. Every exchange of views on every element is infused with feelings and with every step or additional move comes a new reaction. Emotion after emotion pushes policy into boggy territory, and those who find themselves in a bog don't have many options: lie very still and crawl away gently, or develop speed and seek solid ground. Strong feelings will never go away, but several factors can help to prevent you being pushed into the swamp. Politicians must manage to create reliability and predictability in the midst of the process, by introducing patterns into political work through a clearly communicated vision, for example. Citizens need to understand what all these measures are for. Grand policy statements, leaflets and brochures are not enough. Above all, citizens need to experience what it is all about. It works well if citizens experience first-hand how a particular measure has positive effects. Experience is a thousand times stronger than any politician's statement. This is why experiments and temporary implementations are so important. Through experiments, residents discover opportunities and can even try to optimise them. In turn, the fact that such experiments are limited in time, increases the willingness of residents to join the experiment. “A good but drastic measure that only bears fruit in 10 years' time will always struggle” Also, by taking regular measures that can produce quick results, you increase the reliability of a policy for many people. If a dangerous traffic situation becomes safer because of a measure, the backlash will quickly quiet down. Citizens have become more impatient in recent years. A good but drastic measure that only bears fruit in 10 years' time will always struggle. A sophisticated communication strategy that highlights the right emphases can also build confidence. Clearly defining target groups and opponents is then necessary. The emotionality of a debate gives pimento to politics and makes it engaging. Politics without emotion is a dull affair. But strong feelings also make political action risky. The intensity of reactions and the underlying emotions are sometimes very difficult to assess. The political response can therefore be totally wrong. If you react too heavily and stifle the reaction, you provoke even more backlash, and it becomes even more difficult. React too aloofly, people get the feeling that they are not taken seriously and not heard, provoking even more resistance, and the measures may even be torpedoed. This risk is especially high if political opponents - inevitably - start to repeat the grievances they've heard. No matter how good the preparation, how strong the argument, how honest the intention, a politician is never sure of success. But it is important to try to properly assess the reaction every time, however difficult that may be. Politicians in the mobility domain must also realise that they have to go back to the beginning, again and again. In mobility policy, there is very little capital accumulation; never is anything acquired. Introducing a measure and getting remarkably positive results does not ensure faster acceptance and understanding reactions when a similar measure is introduced in another place. After ten years, I still have to explain, practically, why it is justified and even logical to remove parking spaces in order to build safe cycle paths, provide more greenery in the streets, place benches or build bicycle parking facilities. Again and again, I have to point out that the available space for car parking is still many dozens of times larger than that for bicycles or for greenery, and that public space belongs to everyone, not just to motorists. If you want to achieve results as a politician, you must also dare to dive into the emotional debate. You have to prepare yourself as well as possible for that emotionality – which is not easy – and above all formulate for yourself what you want to achieve politically. Debate and its emotionality inevitably distracts you, blurs your vision and distorts the world and yourself. Those without a good compass then get lost. And even if the goal is known and there is a worked-out strategy, success is by no means assured. It may sound heavy-handed, but it is important: anyone who really wants to change things within the mobility domain must be prepared to go under. Ultimately, the question for any policymaker is whether they dare to confront heavy resistance. If so, political will is the most important thing. Political will entails the courage to deliver results and do what you have promised. The will to keep going, the courage to stay clear and not hide the facts. The will to do what you think is right; the courage to tell the truth, and not what is desired or expected. Politicians constantly face obstacles: too little budget, political opposition, lingering procedures that slow down projects. Part of the administration that does not want to go along. Legal disputes which make initiatives impossible. Political counterparts delay their consent in the hope that something will fall out for them. There is no support. Someone wants revenge and mobilises against a project. Procedural errors. Experts making mistakes. “Political action has always been a search for the right balance between getting results and seeking popularity” Getting results is not a given, anyway. But it depends on the political will and the courage of the policymaker whether obstacles cause delays, force adjustments or torpedo things. Political action has always been a search for the right balance between getting results and seeking popularity. At best, the two go together and reinforce each other. But for the most part it is about shuffling and navigating, from one side to the other and back again. Social media, in particular, has not made it any easier to keep going and get results. Social media forces politicians to constantly orient themselves on the popularity scale. Driven by social media, a proposal – however premature – is immediately appraised and deemed good or bad. The politician can no longer quietly adjust or nuance their own proposal. A proposal is simply no longer given time to grow. And with this quick appraisal often come fierce, and not always thoughtful, reactions. In itself, this is not so bad, but it becomes difficult, and sometimes unworkable, when social media and its logic are very actively used as a political weapon. Political competitors deploy social media dynamics as a kind of cluster bomb against a political proposal. The philosopher Tineke Beeckman talks about social media as ‘indignation machines’. Supporters are mobilised again and again to diabolise political opponents and their proposals. In this way, ‘social’ media is the cause of polarisation and a source of disinformation. It helps build clans that only want to be confirmed in their own beliefs. Ignoring the vehement reactions on social media becomes much more difficult when political rivals also start positioning themselves according to those reactions. In other words, not taking a position from their own conviction or political framework but purely from the estimation of which position can elicit the strongest reactions on those social media. In doing so, they exchange political rationality for social media rationality. A political proposal is almost immediately extolled or – as seems much easier – dismissed. “Social media has given popularity-seeking politicians a powerful means to stop focusing on policies and results” The addiction to those quick, vehement reactions has immensely shortened the political cycle. The slow political exchange of views that can nuance and strengthen a proposal has become almost impossible. Those who try to keep proposals and information contained often face crucial information being leaked prematurely on social media – provoking responses. The rapid cycles, where everything is out of date very quickly, also makes it easier for some to spread disinformation. It happens so fast that it is almost impossible to control information. Before anyone gets around to it, it is all out of date anyway. Information therefore gets less valuable. It really has become ‘each man's truth’. For 10 or 20 years, it was easier for politicians to stay focused on results. The cycles were longer and the tools to act destructively more limited. Social media has given popularity-seeking politicians a powerful means to stop focusing on policies and results – distracted from powerful policy making by neatly-crafted glimpses into people's private lives, and assessments of what those mean for votes. Politicians who want to achieve things are hounded much more than before, but it is possible to escape. And that escape route can be found in the politician themselves. Political biographies, especially, have taught me a lot about the transience of the political career. Hilary Mantel describes how the country boy Thomas Cromwell works under Cardinal Wolsey at the court of Henry VIII and then works his way up to become the king's chief minister. At that point, he is England's most powerful man. But then he is suddenly overthrown and dies on the scaffold. That same sudden tilt is a constant in politics. From Caesar to Nixon, from Danton to Churchill. Or, in Ghent, Jacob van Artevelde or Jan van Hembyse. “The possible abrupt end is now inherent in politics” A politician who really wants to make a difference must accept that a political career can be over overnight. The possible abrupt end is now inherent in politics. Even if you do politics with integrity and correctness and deal fairly and constructively with political competitors, in the end it is primarily about gathering and using power. Logically, there comes a time when someone gathers power at your expense. That is inescapable and normal. When I accepted that myself, it gave me incredible peace and strength to make policy. Knowing and accepting that you cannot escape that means you had better focus on results. Whether you perform a lot or little, the too-rapid, abrupt end will come anyway. And then it is more pleasant to be able to look back on a bunch of great results than on nothing. Contrasting the destructive emotions, there is always the more positive. The feelings of those who no longer want to accept that children, young people, elderly people are killed simply because they walk or ride their bikes. The emotions of young parents who ask that they can raise their children in a healthy environment. Of local residents who also want some peace and quiet in their streets. It is often expressed in a much softer way. It is this positive emotionality that can spur us to tackle the city's challenges and try to improve people's quality of life. Filip Watteeuw was an MP from 2009 till 2013 and has been a deputy mayor in Ghent since 2013. He is responsible for mobility, public space and urban planning. After the introduction of the circulation plan in 2017, the Green party won in the 2018 elections and became the second largest party in Ghent. In the October 2024 elections, the Green party achieved the historically highest score ever, 25 per cent, and became the largest party.