Abstract
Deborah Tall argued that mobility and individualism are at the heart of our identity. Public transport, active and shared mobility seek to erode that combination, o!ering an alternative to the private vehicle and to all implications described so well by Roland Barthes in reference to the Citroën DS. These forms of mobility have achieved appreciable results in some contexts known for the widespread network of public transport or cycle/pedestrian infrastructures: here, private vehicles are no longer a necessity and the problem seems to be the opposite, namely dealing with the increasing demand for alternative solutions. Mobility as a Service represents the latest paradigm for rethinking in this direction the set of infrastructures, vehicles, and traffic regulations, namely the transport system. According to the MaaS vision, this system is established as a service available to users in the ways and times that most suit them, thereby discouraging private vehicle ownership and contributing to reducing traffic costs and negative externalities. The deviation between transport systems and vehicle ownership remains an issue within the transport discipline, albeit similar to other reflections on the relationship between the individual and the community, which are typical of our globalized era. When referring to lifelines linked to mobility (mobility lifelines), it is worth changing our perspective to include a broader reflection on living and on the relationships that it involves. After the spread of Covid-19, it was clear to see how simply overhauling the infrastructure and/or the vehicular component of transport was unsatisfactory for providing an adequate response to mobility requirements. The number of users allowed on transport was mostly restricted, but without truly rethinking the nature of the service. Mobility lifelines relate only partially to the infrastructure or the vehicles of which it consists. We must move beyond the ontological concept of infrastructure, recognizing their role as things and the relationship between things. Noting that lifelines are seen here as spaces of support to life, mobility lifelines are responses to the need for a relationship rather than responses to the need for movement. Therefore, they are concentrated not only on the actual materialization of movement, but also on the reasons that make it necessary in contemporary living. The search for the meaning of mobility lifelines must be focused on two aspects, complementary to each other. On one side, it is a matter of understanding how the infrastructure can contribute to redefining the need for mobility and which forms the latter can take in an altered context. On the other side, it is important to understand which measures – not necessarily linked to transport – may be included in their correct planning. It is not a question of diminishing the role of transport but, rather, of accepting that means of transport alone cannot resolve all aspects of mobility linked to today’s needs. This step can be translated into the deviation that exists between transport, mobility, and accessibility. Mobility can be defined as the capacity to move, while accessibility is the ability to obtain what one needs. Planning focused on increasing one may be significantly different from the other. For example, building a new road between a residential and an industrial area increases the capacity of residents to move towards that area, but it does not alter the need to use the car. Conversely, developing residential areas that include numerous employment activities within them allows residents to reach the workplaces more easily, without the need for high mobility. Therefore, a high level of mobility does not necessarily involve high accessibility, just as high accessibility can be achieved even with a low level of mobility. Mobility lifelines can therefore be defined as a system of services, policies, and/or measures aimed at meeting needs that produce mobility, rather than the need for mobility itself. Their ultimate aim is accessibility and not movement. In this research, lifelines is used as a very broad and open term. In the case of mobility lifelines, they only coincide partly with the infrastructural, technological, and vehicular substrate of transport; however, they cannot be ignored. For example, the introduction of flexible working hours may be considered a measure that is part of mobility lifelines as it avoids movements at peak times or allows other urgent activities to be carried out at those times. This measure is not actually focused on transport planning, but it can increase accessibility, namely the ease with which people can perform their activities.