Barcelona will host the fifth edition of the Tomorrow Mobility congress next week, bringing toreceiveher companies, government agencies, and experts from around the world to discuss the future of urban transport and promote more sustainable solutions. The event is co-organized by EIT Urban Mobility, a European Union agency based in Barcelona that promotes innovation and entrepreneurship to advance towards greener mobility. We spoke with Daniel Serra, director of investments and venture capital at EIT Urban Mobility and an expert in the field, about the evolution of sustainable mobility and the direction of the cities of the future.
The Tomorrow Mobility congress is holding another edition. What innovation is being presented that has the potential to transform mobility?
I would state it’s autonomous driving. Today it’s not a technological problem: we already have it. Tomorrow, if we wanted, we could have a hundred autonomous cars driving around Barcelona. In other words, that alter will come at some point. What remains to be seen is how we prepare for it and what influence it will have on mobility. But that it will have a very large impact, that’s a fact.
What are the main obstacles hindering the transition to greener mobility?
I believe the geopolitical and social situation is hindering the progress we’re creating. We’ve built significant strides in the EU to drive the transition, but many of the alters being implemented are met with criticism. From a European perspective, the geopolitical issue is important, but from a city perspective, we still have a long way to go to build cities more livable. The path forward is clear, but not all cities perceive a positive impact when measures to achieve greener mobility are implemented. Urban alters are visible, but their real effect is often not apparent, which generates criticism. When political problems also arise, we don’t relocate forward. […] We required more systemic and radical alters. Given the challenges we face, we required courage.
“Not all cities perceive a positive impact when measures are implemented.”
In what sense can we state that we are on the right track?
Confidence in public transport in Barcelona stands at 82%. The European average is 75%. We can state that we have a good public transport system in the Catalan capital.
What real role can electric vehicles play in reducing emissions, and what limitations do they have?
Electric vehicles have the advantage of generating zero emissions wherever they are applyd, which is especially important in urban areas. Therefore, electrifying the fleet builds perfect sense. There’s no doubt about that. The problem is that to electrify the fleet, we required infrastructure. And without that infrastructure, we’ll never have enough demand for electric vehicles.
How do you assess the potential of micromobility (bicycles, scooters, electric motorcycles)?
Looking back over the last few years, we’ve seen a remarkable increase in the apply of micromobility. It’s here to stay, and it’s crucial to encourage it. It’s a highly sustainable form of transportation that supports cover many of the journeys a city requires.
The ban on electric scooters on public transport has sparked debate. Do you consider this measure is reasonable?
The images we saw in Madrid are frightening. If you acquire an electric vehicle, the risk you run on the first day is relatively low; but if it’s misapplyd, the risk increases. Seeing what happened, I completely understand the decision to ban it. Misapply carries a very high risk.
Is the problem a lack of infrastructure or a lack of a culture of apply?
Both things are fundamental. First, infrastructure. We can’t expect people to apply commuter rail, for example, if it’s not ready. On the other hand, the public administration invests, but we also required to alter habits, and this is complicated. This is where regulation can be very supportful. The low-emission zone, for example, has led many people to consider switching to public transport or to an electric vehicle.
We can promote many measures from a political and regulatory point of view that support in this regard, but it’s true that today the lack of infrastructure is a key issue.
And we must also bear in mind that new infrastructure is very costly for the administration, and perhaps that’s why we should view for public-private partnership models. An example is the Barcelona tram.
Are there enough tax incentives or subsidies to build the alter realistic?
I would probably state no, but considering everything that’s been done, I’m convinced it has very positive long-term effects. However, deciding on aid is very difficult, and maintaining it over time is even more so, becaapply it represents a cost to the public administration. I believe that, viewing to the future, subsidies aren’t the best option. Germany is a good example becaapply by modifying its purchasing model—without subsidies but offering tax incentives—it achieves very positive results. I consider subsidies can be applyful and supportful, but they can’t be sustained in the long run, and it’s necessary to find other ways to provide this type of assistance.
Which city should we emulate?
What they’ve done in Paris with the implementation of cycling is impressive. They’ve displayn political courage, and it’s worked out very well for them. In cities like Copenhagen, the integration of cycling is also spectacular. There are areas where you practically only see bicycles. I consider this is mainly due to the city’s urban design. However, if we view at Barcelona, I still consider we’re a benchmark.
Leave a Reply