Deconstructing accessibility – discursive barriers for increased cycling in Sweden

ABSTRACT

Society’s planning for and dependence on automobility has created several major problems and calls for a shift away from car-based mobility are proliferating. There is a growing recognition of the positive effects of cycling and modal shares for cycling are on the rise in cities. Nevertheless, bicycling is still marginalised in national transport policies. In Sweden, cycling shares are decreasing at a national level, and to steer towards increased cycling, a policy shift is needed. We adopt a post-structuralist view and consider a policy shift to be a discursive shift. With the help of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, the paper depicts the position of cycling in Swedish national transport policy. As accessibility is a key concept in national transport policy and planning, we consider the meaning bestowed upon this concept paramount with regard to the marginalisation of cycling at the national level. The lack of decisiveness in national bicycle policy can be traced back to a suppression of certain meanings of accessibility. This calls for a reinterpretation of accessibility and a revaluation of the national responsibility for cycling. The framing of cycling as a local and primarily urban issue hampers the pro-activity of the national government regarding cycling.

KEYWORDS:

• Mobilities
• bicycling
• accessibility
• discourse
• Sweden

Introduction

Since the 1990s, governments in many countries have started to move slowly and cautiously away from policies facilitating the growth of automobility towards devising plans for sustainable mobility (Aldred 2013; Banister 2008). These endeavours often place a high priority on cycling – a clean, relatively cheap, convenient, convivial, and healthy mode of travelling (e.g. Götschi, Garrard, and Giles-Corti 2016; Mueller et al. 2018; De Vos et al. 2016; Winslott Hiselius and Svensson 2017; Whitelegg 2020). However, decisive national policies to increase cycling are often lacking, even in Sweden (Government 2017a), a country often described as a forerunner in environmental policies (Lidskog and Elander 2012). At the national level, cycling has declined. The recently launched Swedish national bicycle strategy has been criticised for ‘failing to move beyond the existing mobility paradigm or to explicitly call for interventions to restrict car driving’ (Balkmar 2020, 13). Attempts to understand why transport policy and planning are so difficult to change have included studies that try to illuminate assumptions and norms that underlie and permeate discourses of transport planning (Markard, Suter, and Ingold 2016), such as the individualisation of transport choice and the prioritisation of techno-rational and utilitarian knowledge. Here studies have shown that these norms and assumptions have resulted in not only a marginalisation of cycling, but also an ‘automobilisation’ – i.e. a process where cycling is both judged and shaped after automobility (e.g. Aldred 2015; Freudendal-Pedersen, Kesselring, and Servou 2019; Koglin and Rye 2014; Nikolaeva 2019, 7; Popan 2019). Our ambition is to contribute to these debates by unpacking or deconstructing a key concept in this context – accessibility.

Accessibility is often seen as the most important social meaning of transport (Martens 2016) and forms an important goal in national transport policy and planning (Farrington and Farrington 2005). The marginalisation of cycling cannot be viewed separately from this main concept in transport policy. This paper aims to deconstruct conceptualisations of accessibility in Swedish discourse. Deconstructions turn our attention to the way interpretations of a phenomenon are sustained, namely through entanglement with other interpretations, through practices, and through the roles that transport policy and planning are attributing to people. As we are specifically interested in barriers to cycling, the following research question is answered: how is cycling positioned in discourses on accessibility in Swedish transport policy? The paper is structured as follows. The next section discusses how accessibility is interpreted in research, policy, and planning. It also delves into previous research on the status of cycling in transport policy and planning; in other words, it sheds light on the possible reasons for the marginal position of cycling in this area. Thereafter we provide some background on discourse theory and explain how we have performed the analysis. This section also describes the material that used for the study. After a presentation of our analysis, the paper ends with a concluding discussion.

Previous research

This section starts with a brief look into how accessibility is interpreted and continues with an examination of how the marginalisation of cycling is approached in the literature. According to Martens (2016, 84), accessibility is deeply rooted in Western value systems because it renders a surge of freedom and a promise of being able to undertake a wide range of activities. As a concept, it is embedded in both transport geography and transport policy and planning and has always been a normative and contingent concept (Farrington 2007). Accessibility derives its meaning and significance only in connection with a lack of accessibility, which can be both an outcome and a provocation of power struggles. Intrinsic to the focus on quantitatively measuring accessibility are interpretations and judgements concerning who needs what (Farrington and Farrington 2005). These understandings have been affected significantly by accessibility being closely entangled with economic growth, as improvements in accessibility are assumed to contribute to economic growth and cohesion (Vickerman, Spiekermann, and Wegener 1999). However, this association is not unambiguous or undebated (see e.g. Ansar et al. 2016; Banister 2012; Banister and Berechman 2001; Lakshmanan 2011; Meersman and Nazemzadeh 2017). Several scholars have argued for linking accessibility to broader concepts in mobilities research (e.g. Cresswell 2010a; Sheller and Urry 2006; Urry 2007), such as experiences of mobility and issues of power and justice (Ernste, Martens, and Schapendonk 2012; Farrington 2007; Shaw and Hesse 2010). Academically the narrative of accessibility has indeed changed from centring only on the ease of traveling to include the ability to access. It is increasingly related to social justice and sustainability, in what Farrington (2007) calls the ‘new narrative of accessibility’ and in Banister’s (2008) ‘sustainable mobility paradigm’. Accessibility can be considered to contribute to social sustainability (Farrington 2007). Adopting insights from mobilities research to the accessibility concept offers ‘the potential to avoid policy-making based on evidence that either ignores social values in the face of the powerful market processes or is forced into reliance on solely numerical measures of social benefit’ (Farrington 2007, 329).

Cycling’s marginalised position in prevailing transport discourses is well noted with regard to the technological bias of the ‘predict and provide’ paradigm, but also concerning the way sustainability, when broached, is incorporated into transport policy (e.g. Aldred 2015; Bonham and Cox 2010; Koglin 2020; Whitelegg 2020). This could partly be attributed to the fact that planning processes, despite more recent shifts towards greener mobility, generally produce and reproduce traditional mobility patterns where the car is the first and most important mobility mode (Brown, Morris, and Taylor 2009; Koglin 2017; Lindelöw, Koglin, and Svensson 2016). As Whitelegg (2020) phrases it in an overarching argument:

The central argument is that cycling is not part of the current transport paradigm. It is excluded. The current paradigm is based on the flawed argument that higher levels of motorised transport are inevitable, and the result of desirable increases in quality of life, freedoms and choice (97).

This exclusion from the prevailing transport paradigm is examined from different angles in the literature.

Frequently, this phenomenon is related to the domination of rationalism and utilitarianism in transport policy and planning. Aldred (2015) criticises the way that proponents of cycling, both cyclists and stakeholders, rationalise cycling as a matter of utility. She argues that such an approach results in new forms of marginalisation because it erroneously attributes characteristics to cycling that are observed in motorised modes. This utilitarianism within cycling – prioritising for instance neighbourhoods and routes where there is already a large amount of cycling or neglect other than work-related mobility – also undermines its ability to contribute to more equitable accessibility (Flanagan, Lachapelle, and El-Geneidy 2016; Houde, Apparicio, and Séguin 2018). Utilitarianism brings a distinction between commuting and non-commuting, which is strongly sedimented in transport policy and planning. Reducing commuting (and other business-related) time is commonly more highly valued than other time in transport, which clearly relates to the objective of economic growth.

Researchers also criticise, in close relation to the first argument, both the dominance of quantification in transport policy and planning and the lack of quantifying cycling as reinforcing the marginalisation of cycling (Aldred 2015; Koglin and Rye 2014). Cycling is, for example, poorly represented in transport models and cost-benefit analysis.

Speed or time is also a recurring central theme in unpacking transport discourses in relation to the marginalisation of cycling. Transport policy advocates and facilitates a borderless, mobile lifestyle, whereas a shift to low-carbon mobility demands a more local and smaller lifestyle, where cycling fits in. In transport planning, there is more focus on reducing time than on reducing distance (Aldred 2015). Speed or time-space compression has in social research been associated with contemporary capitalism, the push for economic growth, and the wish to overcome the friction of distance (Harvey 1989; Urry 2000). Time, and thus speed, is framed as a social institution and is highly correlated with power and inequality (Virilio and Bratton [1977] 2007). Critical cycling research is both targeting the ‘automobilisation’ and speeding-up of cycling, and questioning the commonly held belief that cycling is only appropriate for short distances. Popan (2019) explores different scenarios and questions the fast and growth-oriented bicycle utopias where bicycle highways represent a post-automobile future. He proposes instead a revaluation of slowness. In a study on long-distance bicycle commuting in Copenhagen, Larsen (2016) argues that it is taken for granted ‘that it is not feasible to commute over longer distances [greater than 5 km] by bike’ (2016, 3). Larsen criticises urban policy that is primarily focused on substituting short car trips with other modes. In his view, a spin-off from long-distance cycling is that it dissolves the distinction between commuting and other errands.

The construction of cycling as unsafe also forms a barrier for a higher prioritisation of cycling in transport policy. Horton (2007) describes three ways in which cycling is constructed as unsafe and the cyclist depicted as vulnerable or unprotected. First, in road safety education, second, in helmet promotion campaigns, and third, through separating cycling from motorised traffic (138). These actions serve to distract from dealing with the roots of unsafety, such as the unequal allocation of space or the facilitation of driving speeds that are unsafe for other road users.

An observation from studying the literature is the overwhelming amount of literature that focuses on urban cycling and shorter trips (e.g. Emanuel 2015, 2019; Koglin 2015; Freudendal-Pedersen 2020; Latham and Wood 2015; Van Duppen and Spierings 2013) and the striking lack of literature reflecting on the marginalisation of non-urban cycling.

In essence, these different contributions show that ‘automobility is still treated as the iconic and taken-for-granted form of modern mobility’, the model upon which cycling has to be shaped (Freudendal-Pedersen, Kesselring, and Servou 2019, 1).

Our analysis deconstructs the accessibility discourse and examines the role of cycling in it; as such, it aims to contribute to the discursive strand in mobilities research. At the same time, this research offers opportunities for adding a mobilities perspective to the, primarily rooted in transport research, accessibility discourse.

Method, case selection, and material

Mobility is continuously being constructed in different systems of meaning (Cresswell 2010b, 2010a, 2011; Sheller and Urry 2006; Urry 2004), and in a similar capacity as space; it is characterised through these coexisting heterogeneities (Massey 2005). This entails that mobility is constitutive (Cresswell 2006, Ernste, Martens, and Schapendonk 2012) but also that our forms of transportation – and our ways of being mobile individuals – are deeply embedded in social constructions of time, space, and distance (Sheller 2018). In our understanding, these systems of meanings, assumptions, and norms, including the assumptions about accessibility analysed here, are power relations. As such, power relations are seen as ‘a language of political potentials which condition but do not determine performance’ (Dyrberg 1997, 88). Previous discursive strands in mobility studies have often drawn on the work of Michel Foucault, historicising and analysing dimensions such as the production of knowledge, rationalities, and subjectification in relation to mobility (see e.g. Bonham and Cox 2010; Doughty and Murray 2016; Stehlin 2014; Manderscheid, Schwanen, and Tyfield 2014). In the post-structuralist perspective, here represented by Laclau and Mouffe’s seminal work ‘Hegemony and Socialist Strategy’ ([1985] 2001), it is instead the power-plays of language that take centre stage, as will be detailed below.

The development of post-structuralist theories began during the 1970s as a critique against structuralism and its analysis of closed systems or structures. In contrast, the point of departure in post-structuralist understandings of discourse is the openness of the social, conceptualised in terms of ‘the impossibility of closure’ (Laclau and Mouffe [1985] 2001, 122). From a post-structuralist perspective, all meanings and identities are seen as discursively formed through language. Concepts are not considered to have an intrinsic, given, or essential meaning that is derived from a position in a closed structure – instead, all meanings are derived relationally or differentially and through temporary stabilisations (Derrida [1978] 2001, 354 ff). The emphasis on differentiality emphasises not only what concepts include, but also what they exclude, which is often conceptualised through dichotomies such as developed/underdeveloped, north/south, man/woman, child/adult, or controlled/free. Also, every relation between, for instance, controlled/free is a temporary stabilisation that is made possible by – and thus permeated with – power (Derrida 1996, 86; Dyrberg 1997; Laclau 1996, 90). In other words, all interpretations of social phenomena are also ‘dependent on what it excludes’ (Torfing 1999, 65). To exemplify, previous deconstructions have shown how images of the ‘dependent’ woman in the global South, have grown in tandem with the ‘independent’ woman in the global North (Mohanty 1991). This means that our understandings of, for instance, mobility are permeated by on-going discursive struggles over dominating the meaning of concepts such as speed, space, distance, as well as justice, family, and home. This openness of meaning (i.e. the impossibility of closure) means that any fixation of meaning (of concepts such as woman, mobility, or family) is inherently contingent (possible, but not necessary) and temporary. The meanings or understandings that have become dominating in a society (such as prevalent automobility norms in transport) have been sedimented over time into a dominating discourse, which is a process imbued with power relations (Laclau and Mouffe [1985] 2001, 105–14). These sedimented discourses are also reflected in institutions and discursive materialities, such as vehicles, spatial structures, roads, traffic rules, and planning practices, and as such, there is no difference between the discursive and the non-discursive. Materialities are shaped by discourse, yet they also constrain the adoption of new discourses (Marttila 2015). The scholar looks at dominating key concepts related to policies such as migration, education, or transport and deconstructs how these concepts reflect, uphold and reproduce meaning and thus power. In this paper we are interested in how a devalued and unprioritised understanding of cycling is upheld discursively in Swedish transport policy. Even though an analysis of materialities could potentially be fruitful, the analysis in this paper is limited to the textual power-plays of language as in the notion of accessibility – a key concept in Swedish transport policy – that is set centre stage. As such, a discourse analysis of Swedish transport and bicycle policy and planning will aid in revealing discursive obstacles for a greater significance of cycling – and uncover the power relations that enable the current indecisive bicycle policy.

Identifying discourses

As mentioned above, a key assumption in Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory is that all meaning is derived differentially, which emphasises not only what concepts include, but also what they exclude. This is conceptualised in terms of processes of equivalence and difference: equivalence is a process where meaning is temporarily derived as elements are being related and linked together, while processes of difference establish the perceived boundaries between the inside and the outside (Laclau and Mouffe [1985] 2001, 127 ff). Chains of equivalence merge different conceptualisations, identities, and relations into a perceived totality by emphasizing similarities and bridging new conceptualisations (Mouffe 2018, 107; Mukhtar-Landgren and Svärd 2018, 14). Here certain concepts – conceptualised as nodal points – are central in determining meaning. One example is the formation of urban subjects during early industrialism. Here nodal points such as ‘labour’ becomes central in relation to different identities, and chains of equivalence such as [dirty] – [uncivilised] – [dangerous] – [amoral] could be contrasted against the bourgeoise as [clean] – [civilised] – [unthreatening] – [moral]. Here the chain of equivalence collapses all possible internal differences between the persons comprising the subject ‘urban poor’ and they are represented as a collective group embodying certain traits (Mukhtar-Landgren 2012, 28). Yet there is never total dominance of either this logic of equivalence or the logic of difference, but political struggle can result in emphasising one of the two relations – while simultaneously building the formation of new political identities (Torfing 1999, 97; Laclau and Mouffe [1985] 2001, 129).

The analysis was carried through in three steps: First, (i) we conducted a broad mapping of key concepts into an ‘initially chaotic and disordered situational map’ that gradually transforms into a more ordered view (Marttila 2015, 172). Here we coded the empirical material in order to create an overview of contents and how different concepts are related to each other. To sort the material, we used the three categories: social, environmental, and economic sustainability (Figure 1). These categories are chosen because they are explicitly referred to in the Transport Bill: ‘The transport system must contribute to an environmentally, economically and socially sustainable development in all parts of the country’ (Government 2016, 10). Secondly, (ii) we identified accessibility as a key concept in current Swedish transport policy. As of 30 May 2020, The Swedish Transport Administration’s website defines accessibility as their primary task and as something that has to be developed in a sustainable way. For the discourse analysis itself, we did not categorise or code words or clauses. Rereading several times turned out to be the best strategy, with support of the content analyses and previous literature. Here, it became clear that ‘growth’ was a nodal point that determined how the concept accessibility was to be interpreted. As such, growth – which in turn was centred around the facilitation of labour market performance – became the perceived ‘neutral backdrop’ to measures of what was to be considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ accessibility. Finally (iii) we searched for and clustered the concepts that hold together the discourse on accessibility. As the empirical analysis will show, accessibility is in the empirical material described as being about generating and supporting growth, which in turn relates to finding quantifiable targets for speed and distance. Through this chain of equivalence, accessibility is related to quantification, speed, the national scale, and urbanism in a way that puts cycling in a disadvantaged position, as will be illustrated below.

Figure 1. The Swedish transport discourse, with a focus on passenger transport (* To from Stockholm/airport/large city/hospital/ university)

The Swedish case and empirical material

The Swedish ministry of transport was established in 2019, and before this, national transport policy was the responsibility of the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation. The main agent for policy implementation is the Swedish Transport Administration (STA), which is responsible for the planning, building, and maintenance of national infrastructure and the building and maintenance of regional infrastructure. Typically, municipalities are road administrators within cities and towns, but outside these, the STA owns most infrastructure, both at the national and regional level. Regional infrastructure is financed by means allocated to regions from the national government and administered by the STA. Since the 1990s, the economic growth-promoting effects of accessibility came to receive a lot of attention in Sweden, accompanied by an emphasis on mega-projects. Calls for reducing transport demand or a more equal distribution of benefits and costs did not have a great impact during this time. In terms of policy goals, the sustainable development discourse entered the stage in Swedish transport policy in 1998 and got sedimented in environmental legislation and assessments, as well as new planning practices (Pettersson 2014). In 2006, the overarching policy objectives ‘long-term sustainability’ and ‘cost-efficiency’ were introduced. These goals are seen as compatible by the Government now, as they also were then (Government 2006). In 2009, a new set of additional goals were adopted by the Government to emphasise the role of the transport system in providing accessibility, in line with the sustainable mobility paradigm (Johansson, Tornberg, and Fernström 2018).

The empirical analysis is based on the following documents. The main national document in transport policy is the national transport bill from 2016: ‘Infrastructure for the Future – Innovative Solutions for Strengthening Competitiveness and Sustainable Development’ (Government 2016). Another significant document is STA’s proposed plan (STA (Swedish Transport Administration/Trafikverket) 2018a) for national transport infrastructure, based on the Transport Bill. This document is used as an extra source to obtain a complete picture of transport policy and planning. To capture conceptualisations of cycling more specifically, two documents are available and were used in the study: ‘Increased and Safe Cycling’, the first national bicycle strategy produced by the government (Government 2017a), and ‘The Common Strategy for Safe Bicycle and Moped Traffic 2018’, published by the STA (STA 2018b). There have, of course, been subsequent developments. The most relevant for cycling is the policy goal that, by 2025, 25 % of passenger kilometres must consist of walking, cycling and public transport. At the moment this percentage is around 20. Another decision is the foundation of a knowledge centre (Cykelcentrum in Swedish) that coordinates and keeps track of bicycle research. We used a snowball approach for consulting other documents and websites from the government or relevant agencies related to transport, to see if they could contribute additional material or could be used in the interpretation of the other documents. When used, they are referred to in the text. All quotes are translated into English by the authors.

Analysis

This section is divided into two parts: a first mapping part that motivates and situates the concept of accessibility in Swedish transport policy; and thereafter, a deconstruction of the accessibility discourse, including the analysis of how cycling is positioned.

A broad mapping of the discourses in Swedish transport and bicycle policy

The purpose of a broad mapping of the discourse in our analysis is to obtain an overview of the discourses in Swedish transport policy and planning. It renders the structure of the total discourse visible. As mentioned, we used social, environmental, and economic sustainability as categories to order the discourse. Within economic sustainability, accessibility is a key concept, closely aligned to ‘economic growth’ (further denoted as ‘growth’). ‘Modal shift’ (translation of ‘transporteffektivitet’ in Swedish) and ‘energy transition’ (‘energieffektivitet’ in Swedish) are key concepts within environmental sustainability. ‘Urban liveability’ (mostly referring to air quality and congestion), ‘health’, ‘safety’ and ‘inclusion’ (here entailing the inclusion of different groups, such as women, children, disabled, and immigrants) are key concepts within the social sustainability dimension. Key concepts are depicted in bold.

Figure 1 shows a more detailed visual representation of the discourse. The map evolved from an initially disordered map into an ordered map where key concepts and other elements of the discourse are clustered within the three sustainability dimensions. To maintain the intelligibility of the illustration, we present an ordered map without visualising all the linkages within and between discourses. Only the accessibility discourse is visualised with connections between accessibility as a key concept and the other elements that are regarded as being the most important. A nodal point within this accessibility discourse is growth. Other elements in the discourse are derived from practices (for example, forecasting and measuring road congestion and the punctuality of rail traffic) and strategies (for example, expanding functional regions and supporting urban walking, cycling, and public transport). Subjectivities, such as road users, companies or the state are in cursive. There are also connections to housing (to facilitate a functioning labour market) and inclusion. In the next section, we are going to further deconstruct accessibility and show how including and excluding interpretations results in the marginalisation of cycling on the national level.

Deconstructing accessibility

The government’s objectives for accessibility state that:

the design and function of the transport system should contribute to a basic accessibility for everyone, with good quality and usability, and enable development [growth] in the entire country (Government 2016, 10).

As of 15 May 2020, the STA presents on its website the slogan ‘We make Sweden closer’ and also the following is posted:

Good accessibility is necessary for a functioning and sustainable society.

We have a responsibility to develop accessibility in a sustainable way.

As noted in the broader mapping, accessibility is a key concept in Swedish transport discourse, and as indicated by the quote above, it is considered necessary for a sustainable or even a functioning (sic!) society. A definition of this buzzword is lacking in the policy documents, yet, as indicated in the mapping above, and as we will illustrate below, the concept is interwoven with economic development and growth. In addition to this aim of a basic accessibility for everyone, there is an overarching goal in transport policy that transport must be economically efficient, in terms of both a high internalisation of costs and the economic efficiency of infrastructure measures (Trafikanalys 2020). Hence, accessibility is interwoven with economic efficiency, which we will also show below. As such, economic development and growth, as well as employment and speed, are key values – but also indicators of accessibility. Below, we will deconstruct the discourse on accessibility by teasing out how it is defined and how this in turn delimits a certain perspective of cycling. We understand growth to be an important nodal point that gives meaning to all other signs in the chain of equivalence, and then we will tease out several dichotomies that structure the discourse on accessibility in Swedish transport policy. These are [quantifiable/non-quantifiable], [fast/slow], [national/local] and [urban/rural]. The dichotomy [utility/leisure] is included in the introduction of growth. The chain is derived from the elements in the discourse. For example, the investments in high-speed rail, a strategy to reduce travel times and to enlarge labour market regions contribute to defining the dichotomy [fast/slow]. Below, these dichotomies will be deconstructed using the empirical material collected for this study. Thereafter, we will discuss the hierarchies that are being formed by relating each pair to previous research.

Growth – a nodal point in discourses on accessibility

The empirical material is permeated with the general assumption that accessibility renders growth. The transport bill explicitly refers to ‘the Swedish model’ for inclusive growth and the use of modernisation as a tool for building an economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable society (Government 2016, 9). The strategy for inclusive growth rests on three pillars: ‘a labour market that facilitates adjustment to change, a universal welfare theory and an economic policy that promotes openness and stability’ (Government 2017b, 1). The aim is rising prosperity and a higher GDP, which requires ‘a dynamic business sector that contributes to high productivity growth and employment’ (p. 2), where the competitiveness of this sector depends on reliable transport (Government 2016). This very powerful discourse permeates transport policy and planning, and it is one of the reasons for persistence of the hegemony of utilitarianism; as such, employment and growth are related and key signifiers in discourses on transport planning. Our first dichotomy utility/leisure is visible here. The centrality of the labour force is emphasised through its connection to the nodal point growth, but it is also clear that transport policy targets primarily companies and commuters and downplays other mobility. The only non-work related mobility that is linked to growth is tourism.

Well-functioning transport contributes to a well-functioning work commute and to a better matching within the labour market. In addition, … accessibility is increasing for incoming visitors, which can contribute to the development of tourism (Government 2016, 32).

Recreational cycling and bicycle tourism create new conditions for urban, but above all, rural development (Government 2017a, 7).

This is an example where cycling gets translated and submerged into the emphasis on growth, as an attempt to ‘defend’ investments in cycling. In the words of Aldred (2015), this becomes a form of rationalisation of cycling. Another example to this end is the rise of the health discourse through the positive effects of physical activity.

The centrality of growth echoes results from previous studies that have indicated the primacy of both growth and work in transport policy (e.g. Rehnlund 2019), and as such, the notion of growth as an important nodal point defining discourses in transport policy is also based on previous research. But how do we know if accessibility to upholding the labour market and catering to commuters is satisfactory, and what does accessibility entail more generally? And what role does cycling play in the articulation of accessibility? This moves us on to the analysis of the remaining dichotomies that uphold discourses of accessibility.

1. On the importance of measuring accessibility [quantifiable/non-quantifiable]

In a more specific vein, accessibility is generally understood in relation to conceptualisations of growth that are related to time, distance, and – relatedly – economic efficiency. To exemplify, accessibility for rail travel is operationalised as reliability and measured in share of delayed trains. For road traffic, it is about congestion, lost travel time, capacity, traffic jams, and road quality (Government 2016, 17). Moving to our emphasis on cycling, we find that these forms of quantification and clear operationalisations of accessibility are lacking. Instead, we find vague suggestions such as ‘improving conditions’ with ‘functional and user-friendly infrastructure’ (Government 2016, 18–22). Another indication of the subordination of cycling as a factor improving accessibility is that accessibility for cycling is not centrally monitored in any way (at least not reported in the empirical material), in contrast to, for example, the monitoring of congestion and delays on the network of roads, or the monitoring of punctuality and travel time for interregional rail (as mentioned above). As such, there is a quantification bias that rewards rail and road traffic, in contrast to cycling, which has no such indicator.

Automobility is thus inherently seen as a vehicle for delivering accessibility. This is taken for granted, and the ambition is merely to remove obstacles such as traffic jams, in order to fulfil the perceived inherent potential of automobility. The merits of cycling are articulated differently in the empirical material:

With a substitution of trips towards cycling, walking and public transport, there will be less emissions from greenhouse gases, particles and thus less impact on climate, health and the environment. It also contributes to reduced noise and better living environments, especially in cities and towns. (Government 2017a, 6)

Cycling provides substantial conditions for regular physical activity. Space-efficient transport solutions such as public transport, walking and cycling will be increasingly necessary to avoid shortages of capacity and congestion in the transport system. (Government 2017a, 7)

From this it is evident that cycling is promoted first and foremost because it is good for ‘others’ (less noise, less congestion, better air for all). This contrasts with automobility, which is generally valued for delivering accessibility and convenience for its users, from which follows that it is good for society. This tendency has earlier been observed by Börjesson and Eliasson (2012), who argue that accessibility in itself is enough reason to promote cycling because it outweighs other, indirect effects. As indicated in the following quote, the significance of car use for accessibility is taken for granted in the empirical material; cycling, on the other hand, is seen as something that can potentially have a positive impact, and then particularly for immigrants.

People born in foreign countries own less often a driver-licence or car, which leads to poorer opportunities for car-travel (Government 2017a, 9).

Cycling can have a positive impact on access to work, education and leisure activities … The government therefore points out that different groups of people, born in foreign countries, may need both to learn to ride a bicycle and to gain increased knowledge of traffic rules and behaviours in different traffic situations (Ibid., 19, emphasis added).

Ironically, cycling’s ability to contribute to a more equitable transport system is undermined by the rationalisation, in particular utilitarianism, and the ‘automobilisation’ of cycling, as other researchers have previously argued (e.g. Flanagan, Lachapelle, and El-Geneidy 2016; Houde, Apparicio, and Anne-Marie 2018).

Summing up, as mentioned initially, ‘growth’ is a central nodal point in the accessibility discourse. While accessibility is quantified, monitored, and elevated with regard to road and rail, cycling is not being seen as a solution that contributes to increased accessibility, and changes in accessibility related to cycling are barely monitored or measured. The accessibility discourse is thus dominated by a car and rail perspective, while accessibility for cycling is suppressed or merely rendered irrelevant. The role of bicycling is either rationalised as part of a growth discourse or excluded from a growth discourse by being attached to ‘other’ values such as inclusion, which are not rendered as quantifiable. Thus, the heavy emphasis on growth brings with it a quantification bias, dividing accessibility into good (quantifiable) accessibility and other (non-quantifiable) accessibility. As such, the dichotomy quantifiable/non-quantifiable is part of delimiting and defining discourses of accessibility.

• (2)The centrality of speed [fast/slow]

As mentioned above, attempts to monitor, quantify and measure accessibility are generally associated with notions of speed and distance as indicators of growth. In a post-structuralist understanding, dichotomies are central for creating shared meanings and interpretations, where concepts are given meaning in relation to what they are not. As such, ‘fast’ can only exist in relation to something slow. The centrality of travel time values in economic valuation plays a vital role in this discourse, related to the tendency to understand development as speeding-up and the conception of transport as activity-derived and thus travel as a cost that can be decreased by speed. The national goals for road (car) infrastructure are among other things ‘eliminating bottlenecks’ and ‘decreasing commuting times to main towns’ (STA 2018a, 16–20). For rail, similar goals of speeding up and increasing capacity have been proposed. This emphasis on increasing speed is closely related to the strategy of enlarging labour market regions. Enlarging of labour markets, in Sweden something that often goes hand in hand with a polycentric regional development, is assumed to be both a result and a driver of economic growth, and thus has become a political goal (Johansson 2008).

The national plan proposes several measures aimed at increasing the opportunity for people to live further away from their workplace. (STA (Swedish Transport Administration/Trafikverket) 2018a, 26).

This strategy will probably raise the cost of commuting (even if a greater distance can be bridged in the same time), push affordable housing still further out (physically), and causes besides physical barriers for cycling, a further slowing down of cycling in relation to driving. Decades of speeding up car travel have already helped make bicycling relatively slower and slower. One would expect that speeding-up cycling would fit this ‘faster and further away’ discourse. However, in the empirical material there is no mention of concrete activities that aim to speed up cycling. The great potential of electric bikes and speed-pedelecs (fast electric bikes) is largely ignored. Only in urban areas is decreasing the speed of car traffic proposed, together with increased accessibility for walking, cycling, and public transport, an issue that we turn to below. But first, summing up, we have seen that in the articulation of accessibility, fast modes and speeding-up are dominating over slowness. Transport policy facilitates a borderless and mobile lifestyle; the corona crisis illustrates how deeply embedded this lifestyle is and how disturbing this lifestyle creates disruption. Expanding distances and increasing speed is seen as a solution instead of supporting local and sustainable (low-carbon) ways of living, as Aldred (2015) has also argued. As such, the analysis indicates a new dichotomy that can be used to tease out the chain of equivalence that gives meaning to discourses on accessibility: fast/slow.

• (3)The centrality of the national and the urban [national/local] and [urban-rural]

The economic growth-promoting effects of transport infrastructure have come to receive a great deal of attention in Sweden since the 1990s (Pettersson 2014, 89). This was accompanied by the construction of large infrastructure projects that aimed to facilitate commuting, improve transport between production areas and cities and harbours and facilitate export. The accessibility discourse emphasises the national (and to a lesser extent the regional) scale and downplays the local one. This is supported by the overrepresentation of national issues in the Transport Bill, such as the expansion of the national railway network, the European network TEN-T, and the aviation strategy. At the same time, the proliferating negative effects of car use in Sweden threatens accessibility within cities and hence threatens growth (following the theory that associates infrastructure and transport with growth and the strong discourse of the city as economic motor (Johansson 2008)). Hence, the accessibility discourse is both national and urban rather than local or rural. The STA (2018a) expresses the following ambition with the national plan:

… contribute to functioning and sustainable urban environments and offer a basic standard in rural areas (11).

Increasing walking, cycling, and public transport is praised as a possibility to increase urban accessibility. Cycling is here articulated as a local issue instead of a national issue, yet also as an urban issue and not a rural issue. Here, a link with the concept of modal shift (within environmental sustainability) is established (see Figure 1). In the bicycle strategy it is emphasised that the potential for increased cycling is on distances up to 5 kilometres. As mentioned before, the government has set the goal for 2025 that the share of public transport, cycling, and walking in total travelled kilometres should be 25%, with the aim to double this share in the long term. In the climate bill, it is stated that to reach this goal

cities should develop towards sustainable urban structures with efficient land use where walking, cycling, and public transport are promoted (Government 2019, 122).

The target of 25% walking, cycling, and public transport is proposed to be differentiated: 27–49% for large cities; 16% for smaller cities; and 7% for rural areas, which are attractive to tourists. (Trafikanalys 2019). Only cities can apply for a 50% subsidy of the state for their cycling infrastructure. This focus on large cities is bolstered by the idea that the problems cycling is supposed to solve (congestion and air pollution) are predominantly articulated as urban problems. Outside urban areas, the ambition to achieve a mobility shift as a tool to reach environmental goals is low. There we see a focus on (high-speed) rail that is assumed to substitute the car (and airplane) over long distances, and a reliance on the technical transformation, the electrification of automobility. In our interpretation, there is a clear bias in the empirical material, where the national goal of increased cycling only applies to urban areas. The dichotomy [urban/rural] is the only one where cycling fits in the accessibility discourse, albeit not for its capacity to contribute to accessibility but primarily for its indirect effects. There is a suppression of the national dimension in the achievement of a mobility shift towards a larger role for cycling; rather, this is framed as having to take place in urban areas and is presented as a local responsibility. As we will discuss later, one of the consequences of this suppression is that cycling is missing out on substantial support. As such, the final dichotomies in our analysis are: national/local and urban/rural.

• (4)Summing up – deconstructing accessibility in Swedish transport policy

Summing up, the discourse on accessibility can be summarised in the following chain of equivalence (Figure 2). In the accessibility discourse with its nodal point growth, leisure, non-quantified, slow, local and rural are suppressed meanings. In contrast, the cycling discourse is mostly localised in the suppressed meanings, except for the dominance of the urban over the rural (the cycling discourse is shaded).

Figure 2. Chain of equivalence

As the chains of equivalence and difference indicate, we can see that discourses on accessibility are permeated by a strong quantification bias, where the accessibility that can be monitored and measured is reserved to certain modes (rail, road), and not others (cycling). This tendency can be understood both by the previously indicated tendency in transport planning to reward technological knowledge, and its strong connection to the nodal point growth, which is operationalised in relation to work and utility. In this discourse, the dichotomies [utility/leisure] and [quantifiable/non-quantifiable] become central in structuring and distinguishing relevant from irrelevant accessibility. These are also strengthened and emphasised through the dichotomies [fast/slow] and [national/local]. Also, these dichotomies delimit the spatial possibilities for bicycle accessibility and emphasise almost exclusively the urban scale. Taken together, this chain of equivalence sums up an accessibility discourse that places cycling largely outside the realm of relevance for obtaining national accessibility goals. It finds a place within the dominance of the urban over the rural, yet not because of its contribution to accessibility for cycling but because of its indirect effects.

Concluding discussion

The governmental goal that:

the design and function of the transport system should contribute to a basic accessibility for everyone, with good quality and usability, and enable development in the entire country. (Government 2016, 10, emphasis added)

can be seen in another light after this deconstruction of accessibility. There is no definition of basic accessibility for cycling, as we have seen that quantitative assessment of accessibility is primarily performed for car and rail traffic. Accessibility is strongly linked to economic development and growth, and growth implies an emphasis on faster and further away, downplaying local lifestyles and local functions of infrastructure. So what is meant by ‘for everyone? ‘Everyone’ for us presumes non-dependence on car-possession, non-dependence on residential location, and non-dependence on financial means, as well as not being restricted to certain groups.

Our results are in line with earlier research that has pointed out that the bicycle strategy lends little support to limiting accessibility for the car (Balkmar 2020). There is a hegemony of automobility in Swedish transport policy that is not easy to break. It is evident that the national goal to increase cycling only applies to urban areas and that the responsibility to achieve a mobility transition has been placed in the hands of local governments. What are the effects of this dominance of the urban and local meaning of cycling for achieving a mobility shift and improved accessibility for cycling?

First, and perhaps most importantly, by labelling cycling as an policy issue for local governments, the drive to utilise national policy instruments, such as legislation and standardisation, is much weaker. This is, for example, the case in the development of standards for signage, or bicycle facilities with stations. Instead, change becomes mostly dependent on pressure from local and regional governments or non-governmental organisations. This suppression of a national dimension in cycling is also sedimented in the institutional ‘rule’ that national resources for cycling can only be used for bicycle paths – closely attached – to national infrastructure (primarily motorways), which is mainly irrelevant for cycling. Besides subventing research and financially supporting non-governmental organisations the Government is barely involved in non-infrastructural measures to increase cycling.

Secondly, it ignores the impact of sparse regional structures and the barrier effect of large regional and national infrastructure on cycling. By emphasising only urban cycling, cities and towns have, and will, increasingly become sustainable islands surrounded by unsustainable structures, as previously noted by Aldred (2013). Residents of rural areas will become more dependent on the car than they already are.

Thirdly, it underestimates the potential for cycling outside urban areas. It neglects, for example, the potential of the electric bike and the speed-pedelec in bridging longer distances. It also ignores a group with enormous potential, if the bar was not set so low. All children in Sweden usually receive free public transport to school when the home-to-school distance exceeds 3–4 km (children under ca.16 yrs.) or 6 km (adolescents older than ca.15 yrs.).

What are the implications of our findings for policy? Accessibility can be an internal strength of cycling; however, to fulfil it, the discursive interpretation of accessibility needs to be altered. A radical change would be for accessibility to be disconnected from economic growth as it is currently defined and instead approach the support of local lifestyles, where speed and the unhindered flow on the road network is not quintessential but where the accessibility and the living environment for the people around it and those who do not use cars comes first. In a revival of local mobility, labour market regions should not be enlarged to extend car-trips, but attuned to the range of bicycles (or e-bikes). In essence, this points towards an integration of accessibility with other political goals, such as health, inclusion, safety, and environmental sustainability, instead of pursuing them separately. A reactivation of political struggles that aim at fixing the meaning of accessibility would create a window of opportunity for altering discourses.

Our focus was limited, and an exploration of other key concepts can provide additional understanding. Two of those are road safety and equity. Road safety seems to have the potential to support cycling, yet it is mostly associated with facilitating car traffic (e.g. Beckmann 2004; Forstorp 2006; May, Tranter, and Warn 2011). Inclusion is rather underexposed in the policy documents. The principal argument in the material is that the transport system has to be accessible for all. A deconstruction of inclusion (or equity), which entails dichotomies such as male/female, adult/child, freedom/dependency, rich/poor, powerful/vulnerable (e.g. Balkmar 2007; Jones and Lucas 2012; Mullen et al. 2014; Sheller 2018; Stehlin 2014) can illuminate other discursive barriers for a larger role of cycling in transport policy.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions for improvements, which we gratefully have utilised. We would also like to thank Till Koglin for fruitful discussions. This research has been supported by the Swedish Transport Administration.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.