Alcantara, M.N.P.A Table 1. Paradigms of academic knowledge about urban transport. Source: Keblowski & Bassens (2015)
orthodox
-classical discipline - on the individual level: users/passengers as rational actors maximizing - on the -led, technical, and rational discipline building on empirical data rather than theory the motor of economic growth use of mathematical/econometric computation and forecasting; costbenefit analysis as a principal measurement tool mono-functional, car-oriented neo-classical planning
embracing a wider spectrum of environmental and social aspects a sustainable
environmentally friendly, healthy and participative shift towards public transport and soft transport modes stronger links between land-use and transport more attention paid to individual behaviors and lifestyle more participative ways of generating transport policies and practices
critical
technical, quantitative, descriptive, and de-politicized: - offering technological and behavioral fixes to address social and political problems underpinning transport - non-utopian: focused primarily on physical or environmental issues instead of proposing broad social or political visions - failing to confront systemic reasons behind un-sustainability - euphemizing and individualizing structural causes for mobility-related problems explicit focus on social, political, and economic relations and regulatory frameworks underpinning transport recognition of issues of gender, race, ethnicity, class, disability, and age recognition of mobility as a discriminatory norm and form of capital producing socio-spatial inequalities critique of entrepreneurial and splintering practices in transport
8
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans [SUMPs] and the transition behind planning paradigms