Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Proposed structure for Workshop 3: 'Traffic Culture' by Anastasia P. Kama

I have spent some time trying to formulate what the content of the workshop should be by finding a common thread through the proposals of the people who have been invited to attend this workshop. Below are some thoughts.

Relevance of Cultural Identities, Values, and Language in the Development of "Traffic Culture"

First, I think that the participants should define the concept of "traffic culture" out of their perspective since I believe that it is perceived and experienced differently.

Greece holds presently the presidency of the EU. Member States have observed and remarked that the Greek people defy the laws of the land. Greece has seen some radical changes in society either due to the rise in disposable income leading to consumerism, so much criticised by Greeks themselves when they view other industrialized nations, or through the implementation of the EU directives. There seems to be a desire to become more European without, however, the growing pains of what becoming European means. The latter has become to many Greeks synonymous with a loss of the "Greek identity" and possibly with that the loss of the language as part of that identity. Hence the very idea of becoming European is opposed by many. Could this observed defiance be called resistance to change or is it partly due to cultural differences on how Greeks view responsibility, authority and obedience?

How can a country such as Greece assure its citizens that this change does not mean a loss of Greek identity? The seminars held thus far (on "Culture. Building Stone for Europe 2002") and the discussions on cultural diversity are a beginning. This information needs to be filtered down to the people who live the anxiety of change.

Dorothy Lee defines culture as a symbolic system which transforms physical reality into experienced reality while cultural behaviour is the system where the self is related to the universe. The reality and hence experience is different for each culture.

During the fuel crisis in the 1970s, the United States government imposed a national speed limit for conserving fuel for the future. This is an example of social responsibility to the collective whole, while in Greece, it appears that everyone is only responsible to the family and the in-group he/she is connected with). Dorothy Lee in a monograph entitled "View of the Self in Greek Culture", states that obedience is very important, however, an obedience to be found only within a structured whole, i.e. family and the in-group. Hence authority is derived from having a place in this structured whole, and obedience applies only to the people within that. Thus it can be said that in Greece the government appears as not being personal, and the law is external to the structured whole.

Is it within the role of Governments, either state governments or the EU, to be responsible to identify and legislate laws to protect the welfare of its citizens, as a whole? For example, to accommodate persons with special needs (i.e. handicapped) in the planning of transport systems?.

Each member state has unique problems within the EU. Are some of the problems examples of cultural diversity? The change in name from European Community to European Union has many implications. Is it the intent by the policy makers to transform or do away with cultural identities within a new melting pot? And what do the implications mean for each country with their own, unique identities?

Presumably these questions will be dealt with by workshop 1 on "Cross cultural identities, values and language" during the Fifth Seminar. I believe that these questions are of equal relevance for our workshop on "traffic culture" and should be considered according to the various concepts of 'traffic culture' the participants have proposed..

Goals to be obtained and considerations in urban transportation systems.

So, if we believe that culture and the behaviour of its people expresses their reality and experiences, how does this get defined and implemented when traffic networks are designed?

What is the purpose of developing an urban transport system? Is it the purpose to serve a population already formed around a city centre or is it the purpose to develop land use policies and to implement it by developing a transport system?

According to J. Michael Thomson, people took, until recently, a rather simple view that urban transport existed to enable people to move between various buildings or other places in the city where they needed to be. "If the need for transport appeared to increase, there was an obligation to meet that demand; otherwise the needs of the city would not be provided for. The supply of transport was regarded in much the same way as electricity, gas, water and other services." (p.16) Thompson goes on to state that this view overlooks two important complications which distinguishes transport from other services:

1. Transport does not just serve the city: it is also an important part of the city ...Cities
are made up essentially of buildings and transport.

2. The buildings and the activities within them do not exist independently of the transport
system that serves them. Hence the other activities that make up the life of the city are
dependent upon the transport facilities that link them together. The physical structure
of the city, its size and spread, its way of life and character, are all dependent upon the
nature and quality of its transport system.

In defining the functions of a transport system, questions arise as to what sort of city one wants, what size and what classes of people the transport system should serve. Thomson asserts that cities develop as a result of many unconnected decisions made without much foresight, planning or understanding. Many cities are now asking what are their goals, what sort of places do they want to become, and how could transport help to achieve these goals? "Transport is so inextricably bound up with the way the city is laid out and organized, the way the city looks, feels and functions, that it should never be assessed in isolation from these other considerations."

Before judging the effectiveness or adequacy of a transport system, one should, therefore, look deeper and further than the extent of congestions on the roads or the punctuality of the buses or trains; one should ask the following questions:

1. To what extent can people engage themselves in the activities they want? Are they prevented or deterred by travel difficulties or costs (or both) from obtaining the work they want, going to school of their choice, shopping where and what they like? Are people able to reach the places and the activities they want? Fundamentally, is that what transport is about?
2. To what extent can people live in the area they prefer? People's activities may be regarded as of two kinds: community and domestic activities.
3. How easy, inexpensive, pleasant and quick (in time, not speed) are the journeys involved in community activities, especially business journeys and journeys to work, school, shops or to the city centre?
4. How costly is the distribution of goods within the city?
5. How many accidents, and of what severity, occur on the transport system?
6. How does the transport system impinge upon the environment in which people work,
live, shop and spend their leisure?

Unfortunately, the analysis of transport systems has invariably been based on engineering concepts which attach importance only to motorized journeys and which take it as given the activities at the end of the journeys. Therefore in assessing the adequacy of transport systems or what would be the best way to improving them, it is important to focus on meeting human needs rather than how well they function as machines.

Conclusion

Here is where the importance of a culture with its customs or norms becomes evident, especially when it comes to shape attitudes towards attempts to manage traffic whether now by pedestrian streets, one way streets, speed limits. These attitudes express at their best incomplete or uncertain relationships to the city given the lack of an overall viewpoint, while remaining inclusive as far as determining traffic behaviour is concerned. It seems only within specific limits are things possible.

Certainly this goes especially for planning and implementing a transportation system with the purpose to serve people. It is a complex undertaking and requires a multi-disciplinary approach, including urban / regional planning (as discussed in workshop 2) and 'culture driven economies' (workshop 5). For the purpose of this workshop, it is proposed to focus at first on the six questions mentioned above.

With Greece becoming more affluent, the ownership and the use of private cars as an alternative means of transport has almost overtaken the use of the public transport systems (buses, metro). What is required, in order to be able to lure the private car user into abandoning the car and to start utilizing again public transportation? These and many other questions will shape the topics of discussion in the workshop.

^ Top

« Introduction by Hatto Fischer | Framework Paper by Anastasia P. Kamai: »