Harald Heinrichs · Pim Martens Gerd Michelsen · Arnim Wiek Editors

2.2 Underlying Causes and Actors
Urban mobility is driven by a complex set of practices, habits, norms and so forth 
driven by the transportation industry, planners, government, and consumers or some 
combinations of these, all of which give current planning paradigms great inertia 
(Geels et al. 
2012
). Here, we describe some of these processes in preparation for the 
next and final sections outlining the wide ranging decisions and behaviors of these 
key actor groups.
2.2.1 The Individual and the Household
The individual and households sit at the most micro level of activity yielding daily 
decisions about how to travel and less regular decisions about home location or 
vehicle purchases. Daily decisions are made, mostly on the rational maximization 
of perceived travel convenience. There are large constraints on these decisions, 
however, as significant costs sunk into automobile ownership compel people to 
drive, since they are paying for the vehicle (through depreciation, insurance, etc.) 
whether they use it or not. Home location decisions are rarely made to minimize 
travel, as many choose to locate themselves in particular school districts or in com-
munities with particular demographics. Additionally, car ownership is a powerful 
tool of identity formation in the US society, where it’s seen as a symbol of status and 
patriotism (Paterson 
2007
).
2.2.2 Planners and Developers
Early last century, most urban planners in the US felt that suburban-type develop-
ment based on automobile transportation offered a better quality of life compared to 
the crowded and dirty industrial urban centers of the time (Foster 
1981
). Even today, 
most urban planning practices merely reproduce the suburban, automobile-oriented 
models. After all, planners are simply agents of the governments for which they 
work and rarely serve as forces for change.
Developers reproduce the suburban model, not out of a particular preference but 
mostly because it seems to be the least-risky investment (e.g., Levine 
2005
). Banks 
are more likely to lend construction loans to build traditional suburban develop-
ments, and developers find it easier to develop fresh “greenfield” sites on the edge 
of cities where they can avoid potential neighborhood rejection of their project and 
higher or unpredictable construction costs in urban infill sites. Furthermore, many 
developers feel local land-use zoning often prevents them from building more dense 
and walkable developments (Levine and Inam 
2004
).
21 Mobility and Sustainability

---

266