申論題

4. 請說明下文所稱「都市運輸政策改變」之內涵大致為何?(20%)

ABSTRACT Transport policy has proven highly resistant to change despite growing environ-
mental problems. However, in the Swedish city of Örebro, objectives and policy measures in
support of ecological sustainability have successfully been introduced in urban transport
policies adopted by the local government. This article explains how this 'greening' became
possible. Three variables of change proved highly important to understand policy change
in this case: (i) new policy ideas of sustainable transport, (ii) reorganization of the local
administration and (iii) the pressure of green policy entrepreneurs. A common denominator
behind all these changes was the reformation of urban transport into a political issue through
discursive changes and an active involvement by elected politicians, that is, politicization.
The continuing importance of politics in contemporary policy processes as complex as trans-
port is an important lesson from this case, that is, politics still matters.

Introduction
Transport is one of the key areas for achieving sustainable development that has
so far been unsuccessfully addressed in policy-making and implementation. The
contribution of the transport sector to environmental degradation has even
worsened in comparison to other sectors (Banister, 2005). This lack of progress
towards sustainability has generated growing criticism. In his keynote address
to the International Transport Forum (a worldwide platform for transport minis-
ters, industry and civil society) in Leipzig in May 2008, the Executive Secretary of
the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change Yvo de Boer argued that
'present political action in the transport sector is woefully inadequate' and that
the stakeholders of transport had a choice, either to proactively participate in
the global process related to climate change or to have their policies determined
by this process (De Boer, 2008).
In this debate, growing interest has been given to urban transport, a sub-policy
area in which major environmental improvement can and must be made (cf.
Commission of the European Communities, 2007). First, urban transport is respon-
sible for severe local environmental problems such as air pollution, noise, degraded
natural habitats, etc. and also contributes considerably and increasingly to global
environmental problems such as climate change (Commission of the European
Communities, 2007； Lidskog et al., 2003). Second, urban areas offer unique opportu-
nities for dealing with unsustainable transport. Short distance travelling and a high
concentration of people make non-motorized and public transport viable alter-
natives to private cars (Banister, 2005).
Although the need for sustainable transport has been more and more accepted,
transport policy has proven highly resistant to change (Goldman & Gorham, 2006；
Low et al., 2003). At least four major barriers to change have been identified: First,
transport policy is locked in a certain trajectory by the physical design and technical
solutions of existing transport infrastructure, making policy change costly. Second,
powerful discursive constructions and stories about automobile mobility legitimize
certain practices, beliefs and actors while discrediting others in transport planning
and policymaking (Sheller & Urry, 2000). Third, transport is institutionally set-up
as a separate policy area, governed by authorities and organizations that are only
responsible for transport. Lack of integration and co-ordination with other policy
sectors (such as environment, land-use, health, business, etc.) is seen as a hindrance
for policy change. On the other hand, integration risks complicating decision-making
processes and thus reducing institutional capacity for action. Finally, transport policy
is of great importance for a range of highly entrenched interests and networks making
the stakes in policy change high for several powerful actors (Flyvbjerg, 2001； Hansen,