Mobility Justice Findings

Distributive

The first question in the analysis asked: ‘Are daily needs provided at a minimum level for the least advantaged?’ All three plans and the overall theory lay out a set of basic functions in line with Rawls’ definition of primary goods (Pereira et al., 2017) and define a minimum capability through walking and cycling proximity (Sen, 1979). Accomplishing the provision of basic functions also generally takes place within the existing built form context. There is some focus on densification, particularly in Melbourne, but the plans lean most heavily on reconfiguring streets and adding or shifting services to fill gaps. This has the potential for an easier and faster implementation because it is typically under the municipal government’s control. In contrast, a development centred approach (Dunham-Jones & Williamson, 2009; Tachieva, 2010), relies more heavily on private investment. While this has the potential for more substantial change on a specific site, particularly in areas where low density or built form are barriers to the 15-Minute City, for Portland a densification-only approach was not feasible based on long-term growth projections. These strategies all provide daily needs at a minimum level, but only offer a transportation justice solution (reducing externalities) (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020) and do not enter the realm of mobility justice (addressing underlying power structures) (Sheller, 2018).

The second part of the analysis question – providing for the least advantaged – is less clear in a distributive justice sense. Focusing on active transportation does represent a disadvantaged group in terms of the previous priority and investment into automobile travel (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2020). The plans and theory also recognize the uneven distribution of resources and capabilities that is present in cities, with Paris and Portland implementing policies to reduce gentrification and displacement. However, the specific implementation of the plans will be an important factor in determining how effective they are at providing for needs. For example, the use of nodes such as Neighbourhood Activity Centres is only effective if the nodes are distributed evenly across the city and are sufficiently connected to the surrounding neighbourhood. Without these points, the existing patterns of amenity deserts and islands of walkability currently seen with transit-oriented development will not be corrected.

Representative

In terms of representative justice, the analysis asked, ‘Do daily needs and access methods reflect the needs and abilities of the local community?’ All three city plans showed broad public support and line up with the idea of a universal capability measure (Pereira et al., 2017). The three cities also recognize that additional consultation is needed for developing more detailed local plans. Further, the three plans include social and policy initiatives that address the non-physical barriers to mobility, such as Portland’s equity framework and Portland’s self-sufficiency programs for low-income households. These represent a recognition of the social- and knowledge-based factors that influence mobility, including culture, gender, age, and ability (Sen, 1979). However, this is not included in Moreno’s (2019) overall theory. Given that the goal of the 15-Minute City is to enable the fulfilling of daily needs

and to encourage a shift toward active transportation, ensuring that people actually want to and are able to take part in that behaviour is essential.

Procedural

The final analysis question dealt with procedural justice, asking: ‘Are citizens able to influence decisions that impact their mobility and access to daily needs?’ This was the most difficult to answer of the three as public engagement (with the exception of Melbourne’s pilot projects) was not specifically contained within the 15- or 20-Minute City framework. However, all three cities do include a form of engagement or public decision making. Paris and Melbourne are more direct, through participatory budgeting and pilot project partnerships respectively, while Portland’s exists within the government structure in the form of advisory groups and committees. All three represent a hybrid of state- and society-centric approaches (Karner et al., 2020), with Paris having the most society-focused through participatory budgeting. While there are methods for citizens to influence decision-making, the 15- or 20-Minute City policies do not specifically address the historic injustice and lack of power held by marginal groups that mobility justice is seeking to correct. These policies are more of a reflection of the governance structure and values of the city or region than of the 15-Minute City. Each of the three plans reviewed, as well as the 15-Minute City concept, focuses most heavily on distributive justice. The focus on distributive justice may be related to a deficiency within the overall concept and planning more generally. Reallocating resources and reconfiguring urban areas are important issues for planning and relate to the ideas within transport justice, but without representative and procedural justice, may fail to address the underlying power structures (Verlinghieri & Schwanen, 2020). In all cases, the development of measures and strategies would be beneficial, as would collecting long-term data to ensure that the policies and initiatives are improving the mobility for the least advantaged and not exacerbating existing conditions.