Modernity, mobility, and acceleration: cycling as the blind spot in Swedish transport innovation

ABSTRACT

As climate ambitions have increased, questions regarding the sustainability of transport systems have been placed on the transport innovation agenda. Yet the relationship between economic competitiveness and sustainability agendas in national innovation policy is an uneven one. We aim to unpack this relationship by analysing the position of cycling in Swedish innovation policy, focusing on the funding of projects within the field of sustainable mobility. We apply a critical theoretical approach and build on Hartmut Rosa’s critical work on modernity and acceleration, Sheller and Urry’s theories on mobilities – including contributions from followers to this field – and critical innovation studies. The result of our analysis for cycling is threefold. First, the conceptualisation of ‘progress’ does not help to place cycling high on the innovation agenda. Second, the bicycle and cycling have difficulties appearing as ‘new’, in contrast to the car and driving. Third, the unreflexivity regarding automation, digitisation, and sharing prevents taking account of negative effects on cycling and obstructs a fundamental questioning of automobility. In our conclusion, we propose a different view of progress, of which the current interpretation seems to be preventing innovation policy from having a stronger sustainability agenda. An alternative interpretation of progress logically also questions the role and primacy of technological novelties.

KEYWORDS:

• Transport innovation policy
• sustainable mobility
• acceleration
• Sweden

1. Introduction

Innovation policy has a great impact on the future of mobility, and billions of euros are invested annually in R&D in fields such as automation, electrification, digitisation, connectivity and other forms of smart mobility. Innovations in the transport sector have long primarily been ‘centred on the development of novel technologies in the car industry’ (Nykvist & Whitmarsh, 2008, pp. 237–238), with the primary aim of upholding competitiveness and improving the efficiency of the transport system (Adey et al., 2021). Yet as climate ambitions have increased, questions regarding the sustainability of transport systems have also been placed on the transport innovation agenda, including an increasing discourse centred around alternative forms of transport, including cycling. Still, the relationship between economic competitiveness and sustainability agendas in national innovation policy is an uneven one (Kronsell & Mukhtar-Landgren, 2020), and the automobility norm still permeates discourses on sustainable transport – evident not least in descriptions of autonomous and electric vehicles as hopeful solutions to more sustainable transport (Freudendal-Pedersen et al., 2019).

A large bulk of policy studies within the sustainable mobilities field tend to focus on policymaking in the fields of transport or planning, in order to understand the barriers to a more sustainable transport future (e.g. Koglin & Glasare, 2020, 2020; Lindelöw et al., 2016; Oldbury, 2021; Wu et al., 2017). In this text, we instead follow the money and look at national innovation policy. The overarching aim is to unpack and problematise the relationship between innovation, competitiveness and sustainability in national innovation policies in the transport field by looking at the position cycling has taken in transport innovation.

Moving beyond the growing plethora of more applied innovation theories, this text is set in a broader critical theoretical approach, where studies are centred ‘around identifying and elevating the intrinsic bias of “efficient” solutions to social and technical problems’ (Feenberg, 2017, p. 4). In this, it is written in the tradition of texts seeking to uncover the conditions under which policymaking is enabled, and aims to unravel contradictions and obstacles to emancipatory projects, as well as pointing to potential alternatives (Thompson, 2017, p. 4). We address our aim by empirically analysing the position of cycling in Swedish innovation policy, focusing on the funding of innovation projects within the field of sustainable mobility. As such, we illustrate and problematise dominant conceptualisations of transport innovation and unpack how they affect the position of cycling. Sweden makes an interesting case, because the country is often seen at the frontier of sustainable development (Lidskog & Elander, 2012); it also ranks 2 on the performance towards achieving the sustainable development goals¹ and 3 on the global innovation index.² Cycling, which is a more sustainable solution, can in many ways be described as counter-hegemonic to automobility: it is active instead of passive; human-powered instead of machine-powered; low carbon instead of high carbon; low speed instead of high speed; outdoors instead of indoors; and carried out with small and light vehicles instead of large and heavy ones (Brömmelstroet et al., 2017; Nikolaeva et al., 2019; Popan, 2019).

To analyse the role of cycling in innovation, we unpack key assumptions in the intersection of transport and innovation by juxtaposing Hartmut Rosa’s critical work on modernity and acceleration, Sheller and Urry’s theories on mobilities – including contributions from followers to this field – and critical innovation studies (e.g. Godin et al., 2017; Sveiby et al., 2012). John Urry has called for a conceptual shift from the ‘social as society’ into the ‘social as mobility’ (Urry, 2000, 2007), and together with Mimi Sheller, he situated mobility in the context of wider societal processes including developments in technology, capital, visions and growth (e.g. Sheller & Urry, 2000, 2006). In a similar way, Rosa (2010, 2019) approaches modernity by situating technology in broader societal processes. Earlier critical theorists, like Marcuse ([1964] 1991) or Habermas ([1969] 1987), primarily critiqued technological rationalisation – in the service of capitalism – as the main force of domination and social control. Rosa instead argues that social acceleration is the overriding feature that steers rationalisation, differentiation, individualisation, and domestication or commodification – all key processes of modernity. Critical innovation scholars (e.g. Godin et al., 2017; Sveiby et al., 2012) critique the so-called pro-innovation bias and focus on aspects that usually do not receive much attention. Taken together, conceptualisations of innovation, technology, time and speed in these three traditions help us to understand the blind spots of transport innovation, identify the foundational building blocks that prevent a more sustainable approach and, finally, open up alternative conceptualisations.

The structure of the paper is as follows. The following section (2) highlights some earlier research that discusses the imbalance between sustainability and competitiveness in innovation policy. Also in Sweden, a body of literature is started to address this issue. The need for a more critical approach is even acknowledged within different research traditions. After a short description of the methodological approach, theoretical background and the empirical material (section 3), we start by mapping the way cycling is represented in the material (section 4). By unpacking key assumptions in the intersection of transport and innovation, we’ll try to understand the marginal role of cycling in innovation policy and projects (section 5). Next, we’ll discuss alternative understandings that could help placing cycling higher on the innovation agenda (section 6). We conclude by summarising the main findings (section 7).

2. Previous research

This text draws on and contributes to ongoing debates on innovation in transport. In an article in Transport Reviews (2023) 31 transport scholars joined to forward a new agenda for social science research in transport studies, arguing that EU transport and innovation policy go in tandem in still prioritising economic, individualistic and technological solutions for sustainability challenges, resulting in an insufficient understanding of inequal consequences and the embedding of new technology and services in society (Ryghaug et al., 2023).

This argument has been confirmed and illustrated in several country-specific empirical studies of innovation processes within the field of smart mobility, at both national and local levels. These studies indicate how ‘rationalit[ies] of competitiveness and economic growth’ and ‘techno-utopianism’ inform local policies regarding the introduction of smart technology in transport (Mukhtar-Landgren & Paulsson, 2021, p. 147). Research on particular innovations follow suit; to exemplify, studies of self-driving vehicles and the narratives permeating them indicate that these often have a strong emphasis on economic growth, in addition to being based on a strong technological determinism, both contributing to a depoliticisation of innovation (Mladenović et al., 2020; cf. Cohen et al., 2020; Freudendal-Pedersen et al., 2019). Several studies of MaaS (Mobility as a Service) indicate a tendency to emphasise growth over sustainability (e.g. Kronsell & Mukhtar-Landgren, 2020; Oldbury, 2021), where for instance Pangbourne et al. (2020) note how the commodification of mobility requires customers and travel activity – the more the better – which does not always align with sustainability motives. Finally, the imbalance between economic and other motives is also observed in cycling innovation. Koglin and Mukhtar-Landgren (2021), for example, show that the bike sharing system in Lund, Sweden, is first of all serving employees and tourists. They conclude that it is likely that economic motives seem to have guided the roll-out of the system rather than social and spatial justice motives or other more complex environmental issues within the transport system (see also Henriksson et al., 2022; Spinney & Lin, 2018).

The need for a more critical approach is expressed in different ways within different transport research traditions. Within the sustainability transitions research community (see Köhler et al., 2019), Pel (2022) acknowledges – despite the critical potential of the different approaches – that ‘much transitions work remains focused on clean energy, the stakes, politics and ethics of mobility innovation often remaining covered under a blanket of general “sustainability” discourse’ (ibid., 30). The concept of ‘transformation’ (or transition) – increasingly used in policy – suffers from a similar problem as sustainability (Westman and Castán Broto, 2022). It promises radical change but does not seem to deliver so far. The authors argue that a crucial reason for this is the aligning of this relatively new concept with ‘established notions of social improvement and progress, thereby cementing their underpinning values’ (Westman and Castan Broto, 2022, 1328). To illustrate this they use the term ‘ivory discourse’.

The social and cultural dimensions of innovation are important topics in mobilities research, which places the meanings of mobility – shaped within power relations – centre stage (Cresswell, 2011; Sheller & Urry, 2006). This field calls for more attention to the inequalities and practices of exclusion that are embedded in innovations (Psarikidou, 2020). Nikolaeva et al. (2019) have started to critically unpack innovation related to cycling by focusing on the question ‘what kind of ideas about cycling, cyclists and cycling environments are brought to the fore by individuals and companies that produce and promote smart cycling innovations?’ They conclude – among other things – that smart cycling futures are diverse and contested; certain lifestyles are propagated and others ignored while at the same time strengthening existing hierarchies. A crucial point the authors make is that the choices made by innovators are deeply political, yet not seldom in the hands of private actors.

We place ourselves in this last research tradition and wish to contribute to a mobilities perspective on innovation. In the next section, we describe our approach more in detail.

3. Methodological approach and material

The question igniting this study was a simple one: What is being funded by innovation agencies within the field of sustainable transport? In this article, we have reviewed Swedish funding within the field of sustainable mobility. Sweden makes an interesting case, because the country is often seen at the frontier of sustainable development (Lidskog & Elander, 2012). Further, it is ranked 1 in terms of implementing and achieving the sustainable development goals of the Agenda 2030 (Stanujkic et al., 2020). It also ranks 2 on the performance towards achieving the sustainable development goals [1] and 3 on the global innovation index [2]. In terms of our analysis, we have first analysed the share of projects relating to cycling and the representation of cycling in the material. Second – and primarily – we have unpacked and problematised the (meagre) representation of cycling by looking at broader conceptualisations of what transport innovation is considered to be, as well as at alternative conceptualisations. By examining alternative understandings, we also open up discussions about the potential for a more radical future transport innovation policy. Below, we describe our approach and the empirical material.

3.1. Methodology and theoretical approach

This text is set in a broader interpretative and critical theoretical approach, where studies are centred around identifying assumptions, intrinsic biases, and lock-jams in policymaking (Feenberg, 2017), as well as potential alternatives (Thompson, 2017). By demonstrating the variation of ideas, the possibility of considering alternative conceptualisations is enabled in a more theoretical sense, and the alternative approaches are made more tangible by being discussed in relation to our empirical material (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p. 164). In the literature, there are a number of different types of definitions of innovation, and as noted by Vaaben (2013) they often consist of two aspects, first the ‘creating or introducing [off] something new in a particular context’ and second, that the ‘new thing must be implemented or otherwise realised in a way that has led to a change’ (Ibid., 18, our emphasis). This is exemplified by van Wee et al.’s definition of transport innovation as ‘new elements of the transport system that are implemented in the real world’ (van Wee et al., 2022, p. 1). Including, yet moving beyond, more narrow debates on transport and innovation, we move to social theory and mobilities studies in order to outline a broader conceptual understanding of the intersection between transport and innovation. This is developed by combining Urry and Sheller’s mobilities studies and Rosa’s work on social acceleration, with critical innovation studies. We have chosen to elevate three key notions: first, innovation as progress. As noted by Vaaben (2013) above, the tendency to emphasise novelty and change is inherent to innovative thinking, and from a broader social theoretical perspective, this centres notions such as progress and development but also growth and competitiveness. Second, the reach for technological novelty is key for innovation in general, and transport innovation more specifically. Thirdly, the notion of innovation as inevitable is, as we will show below, key for how we tend to think of development in a Western context. Below, these three assumptions will be described and motivated – and used to analyse the empirical material.

3.2. Empirical material

In terms of our choice of empirical material, there are many different funds that are both directly and indirectly related to transport and innovation in Sweden. We will exemplify and substantiate our discussion on the role of cycling in transport innovation using examples from 2 of 17 Swedish so-called strategic innovation programmes (SIP). These programmes provide platforms for ‘collaboration in areas that are strategically important for Sweden’ and in this way create conditions for ‘sustainable solutions to global societal challenges and increased international competitiveness’ (website Vinnova, July 2023). These programmes receive funding from Vinnova, the Swedish national agency for innovation systems. Vinnova’s own website and publications are also part of the empirical material to provide general visions on innovation and cycling. The programmes Drive Sweden and Viable Cities are directly related to mobility and transport (see appendix 1 for a description of the material and appendix 2 for full description of the projects). They are, in a sense, the calls that are ‘most likely’ to include a sustainability perspective, as their overall goals relate to sustainability goals. The programmes have had several announcements, but in one case, we had to ask for the details of the announcement since they were not accessible on the website. Financing of these programmes and projects is not always transparent, and different websites must sometimes be consulted to obtain optimal insight. We excluded projects that were related to goods. Quotes we use were (between November 2022 and February 2023) – either available in English or translated into English by us.

Drive Sweden published its first call for proposals in 2018. The program has five thematic areas: business models, public engagement, spatial planning, digital infrastructure and policy development. A diverse group of actors is listed as member in Drive Sweden, such as academia, municipalities, public transport agencies, the Swedish Transport Administration, the Swedish Transport Agency, research institutes, consultancies, car/bus producers (Volvo and Volkswagen), mobile phone companies, municipalities, and app producers. Neither the bicycle industry, bicycle-related NGOs or governmental agencies outside transport have been spotted by us on the long list. The total amount of funding so far (February 2023) within passenger transport has been approximately 236 million SEK, divided over 80 projects, including coordination and services for the whole program.

Viable Cities launched its first call for proposals in 2017. On the website, it can be read that the program explicitly departs from a mission-oriented approach and uses transition management (one of the transition approaches) as an instrument to achieve an energy and climate transition; as such it goes beyond transport and mobility. Mission-oriented policy aims to produce transformational systemic change (Hill, 2022), and simultaneously steers towards economic growth (Mazzucato, 2018). Viable Cities’ mission is to achieve climate-neutral cities in 2013 and a good life for all within planetary boundaries (website). The programme’s goals involve urban climate transitions in which social, ecological and economic sustainability are all considered. A core activity in the program is the cooperation with 23 municipalities that aim to become ‘climate neutral cities 2030’. Cities sign ‘climate contracts’ and play a role as ‘system demonstrator’. From the project database, we only selected projects that have some relation to mobility (goods excluded). The broader scope of Viable Cities makes not all of the projects relevant to our goals. The broad character of the projects makes it difficult to categorise the projects or summarise the funding that is attributed to mobility.

4. The representation of cycling in the empirical material

This section proceeds to describe how cycling is generally represented in the programmes and projects. Programme descriptions and all projects, including information about the content, the amount of funding, and the participating partners were extracted from the websites of Vinnova, Drive Sweden, and Viable Cities. Appendix 2 and appendix 3 list all projects within the two programmes that were judged relevant to personal transport, with a link to their website. Projects targeting the transportation of goods are excluded as are projects within Viable Cities that don’t include any mobility aspects.

Vinnova describes the development of the transport system in three generations: the horse, the personally owned car, and, thirdly, ‘mobility as a service’ as the third. It is remarkable that the substantial role cycling played before the personally owned car became commonplace is wiped out of Swedish history (see Männistö-Funk, 2012). The role of Drive Sweden is to focus on integration, service development and user acceptance within ‘mobility as a service’ (Modig et al., 2018).

Drive Sweden presents a clip on YouTube³ that reflects the programme’s vision of the future of sustainable urban mobility. It is centred around (mostly shared) autonomous vehicles (cars); car parking is largely eliminated, road lanes are smaller, and vacant spaces are used for wider sidewalks. However, the infrastructure barriers are intact, which results in ‘islands’ of social spaces surrounded by traffic space. The urban fabric is separated into a traffic space and a social space; shared traffic spaces are missing. Bicycles – and bike paths – are completely absent. Most vehicles seem to be shared in this clip, but only with people that are already traveling together. People are, without having to wait, picked up from the station, and it also seems that people are dropped off at the front door of their destination. Automated driving is imagined as a seamless event without any delay.

Table 1 gives an overview of the main focus in the projects. Automation, digitisation, sharing and electrification are the common themes in the programme, but projects focus on different aspects which in this paper are subjectively defined. When a project deals with more than one issue, the main issue is deduced from the description. By February 2023, Drive Sweden had issued four calls for proposals. Three of them are very similar and directed towards a digitised, autonomous and shared transport system. Eighty projects (one of the projects on the list in the appendix is the overarching project Krabat) had received funding by February 2023, totalling an amount over 236 million SEK. Projects that focus on technology for automation or digitisation are in the majority. Only 1 of 80 projects that have received funding within these calls has cycling as its explicit sole subject of innovation (Project nr 81 in appendix 2: Increased use of property-related electric bicycle pools). This project raises the fact that the bicycles in an e-bike pool are not used sufficiently, which makes achieving a sustainable business model difficult. E-biking is also included in a project that aims to provide mobility as a service for Scania’s industrial area in Södertälje (project nr 53 Scania Go). Hence, cycling in innovation is, in general, understood in the sense of cycling being part of – an electrified – sharing economy. The programme requires coordination and provides common platforms; four projects serve this purpose. Three projects serve the purpose of external collaboration, on a European level and with Viable Cities. These seven programmes are not included in the table.

Table 1. Contents of Drive Sweden projects, with funding in SEK (the projects within Krabat are excluded under ‘funding’; in total they received around 47 million SEK).

	Technology-centred	Business models	Human- centred	Policy- centred	Effects on society
Car	10	1	4	3	2
Public transport	6	1	4	-	-
Taxi	2	1	-	-	-
Multimodal	-	2	-	-	-
Multimodal, cycling excluded	-	1	-	-	-
Micro- mobility	1	-	-	-	-
E-bike	-	1	-	-	-
Blank	19	5	1	5	3
Total nr of projects	-	12	9	8	5
Funding	83 306 044	46 578 787	15 659 870	6 323 021	2 982 637

(- = none).

Drive Sweden’s latest call is for the safe and sustainable use of small vehicles (at the time of the analysis no projects had received funding). The questions that are asked in this latest call are as follows:

‘What is required for the vehicles to be used safely, securely and efficiently? Can digital technologies such as shared data from connected and drivers be used to improve planning for these vehicles? How can road safety be increased and the conditions for micro-deliveries improved?’ (our emphasis)

Notice that ‘small vehicles’ is a broad category where bicycles can be included but also small delivery vans and e-scooters. There seems to be a focus on how to increase road safety and how to improve conditions for micro-deliveries. This is in line with Nikolaeva et al. (2019), who observed that in countries with low to medium strong cycling cultures, innovations target safety rather than convenience.

Moving to Viable cities: At the time of our analysis, there were around 50 relevant projects (see appendix 3). In Table 2 we tried – despite the broad character of the umbrella projectsin particular, to categorise the projects. Notable is the much larger role played by local governments, the greater attention paid to for measuring and evaluating sustainability indicators, and a less commercial focus. Apart from 3 umbrella projects, there are 11 ‘stand-alone’ projects more- or less-related to mobility. In the project Xplorion in Lund, ‘a car-free accommodation’ is built by providing mobility services – such as public transport and car- and (e-)bicycle-pools – instead of private car parking. In the project ‘Climate Fight Uppsala’ (categorised in the table as having a focus on ‘behaviour change’), among other things, a campaign was organised to stimulate children to bike (this information was not available on the website but retrieved from a brochure of the project). Becoming ‘car-free’ or stimulating ‘cycling as such’ (as a practice, and not as part of a service) are two issues that signal a slightly different focus in Viable Cities compared to Drive Sweden.

Table 2. Projects in Viable Cities (the numbers refer to the projects in appendix 3).

	Focus
Climate neutral cities 2030 25 projects	Digitisation, smart mobility hubs, innovation teams and citizen engagement
Sharing cities Sweden 5 projects	Digital platforms
System demonstrators for faster climate change in cities 6 projects	Conceptualisation of ‘system demonstrator’ and preparation
5 projects	Mobility as a service (6, 7, 8, 9, 14)
3 projects	Behaviour change (3, 10 and 12)
2 projects	Digitisation for knowledge (1 and 2)
1 project	Electric cars (citizen production and sharing of energy services)(5)

However, both Drive Sweden and Viable Cities have a strong focus on providing digital platforms and mobility as a service (which often includes cars). We will try to explain the very limited representation of and attention on cycling by applying a critical perspective based on the aforementioned theoretical fields. We will unpack key assumptions, followed by critiques and alternative understandings that would enhance the role of cycling.

5. Understanding cycling as the blind spot in innovation – innovation and transport in modernity and beyond

Summing up, the empirical analysis indicates that cycling is marginalised and not considered innovative, except when it is shared. In this section, we continue to unpack this by making key assumptions in the intersection transport/innovation our point of departure. Three interrelated facets of transport innovation – as progress, as a technological novelty, and as inevitable – will be discussed below and exemplified using examples from the two Swedish funding institutes’ contexts. The discussion will be followed by a section where we point towards important shortcomings and alternative understandings, before moving on to the concluding discussion.

5.1. Progress

As noted by Pel, “transport innovation is a particularly influential example of the modernist belief in progressive innovation that ‘pushes the boundaries of what can be realised in society” (Pel, 2022, p. 17). Conceptualisations of progress are fundamentally based on the assumption of a past, a present, and a future (Koselleck & Samuel Presner, 2002, p. 225), and includes a gap between what we have today and what we could have tomorrow (Sztompka, 1993, p. 24). As such, notions of progress during modernity often came to represent a driving force to reach further and achieve more – a driving force which also came to characterise politics and policy making (Mukhtar-Landgren, 2012, p. 79) and lies at the core of innovation policies. In their chapter Accelerating the Innovation Race: Do we need reflexive brakes? Hasu et al. (2012, p. 88) describe the tendency to see innovation processes as ‘ever-accelerating’ – and note that it is not rarely conceptualised in terms of a ‘race’ where some are leading development, and others are falling behind. This is partly inherent in modernist understandings of progress, not least in Western historiography where the world has traditionally been narrated into a division between a ‘developed’ (or first world) and ‘developing’ (or third world) countries, where the latter are striving to ‘catch’ up with the first world (e.g. Escobar, 1995). This is also clear in the empirical material, particularly from Drive Sweden, where it is noted that

The demands to rapidly develop products and services to meet new needs and markets are increasing … .(website, February 2023, our emphasis)

Rosa (2010) derives the ever-accelerating pace of innovation from an economic logic where standing still is falling behind, also called the ‘slippery slope phenomenon’ (Ibid, 32). From this perspective, not only speed but also competition becomes an important driver of acceleration in innovation. It is also inherent to the ‘competitive capitalist market system’ which speeds up ‘production, circulation and consumption’ (Ibid., 27) and which is generally seen as an important engine of progress (Nelson, 1990). Even though the Swedish innovation agency Vinnova, which funds the projects, has recently adapted its policy and website to resonate more with the changing imperatives of innovation – from being mainly directed towards growth and competitiveness to include sustainability (see Schot & Edward Steinmueller, 2018) – the close association between progress, competitiveness, growth and innovation is evident in the empirical material:

We believe innovation is needed everywhere in society. This will make Sweden competitive and our world a different place. (website Vinnova 2023, our emphasis)

We encourage organisations in different sectors to cooperate, changing existing laws and policies to pave the way for innovation that makes a difference. We give many people the opportunity to experiment and test new ideas before they become profitable (website Vinnova 2023, our emphasis).

In a similar capacity, Drive Sweden (website) comments that:

Through broad collaborations, we develop and test new solutions that strengthen Sweden’s competitiveness (our emphasis).

As such, it is not possible to conceptualise the role of cycling in innovation without acknowledging the elephant in the room, the car. Private transport is dominated by the car – as the main item of consumption (Sheller & Urry, 2000). In the transport sector, the car industry has long been the cradle of innovation in its aim to decrease labour costs (think Fordism and post-Fordism) but also to increase driver convenience. The production of the car is locked into a myriad of other types of commercial companies (Paterson, 2007). As such, competition, and progress, has been represented by the car industry, and today is also increasingly represented by the digitisation industry. This is also clear in the empirical material from Drive Sweden.

Progress is understood as progression in a certain direction (Metcalfe, 2001, p. 564) and in transport this has led to the aim of saving ever more time and of increasing efficiency. Rosa pinpoints ‘time-hunger’ as central in modern society (Rosa, 2010, p. 26). This is particularly evident in transport, where time is the most valued economic entity, hence an area in which it is important to achieve growth. The car has been a game changer in this respect. The car system has also transformed ‘the concept of speed into one of convenience’ and, with this, subordinated other modes into being seen as fragmented and inflexible, i.e. inconvenient (Urry, 2007, p. 114). Digitisation can be seen as a more recent game changer for human connectivity, convenience, and efficiency, and follows a comparable progressive trajectory. The car and digitisation industry now cooperate in the move from substituting arms and legs (towards a sitting society) towards substituting the senses, and finally, the brain (Habermas, [1969] 1987, p. 241).

Innovation seems to be for economic growth, what the car is for mobility, which raises the question of what it is that sustains and reproduces the significance of innovation. Part of the answer can be found in the institutionalisation of innovation through the increasing entanglement between policy and industry. As Habermas formulates it:

It is only since the capitalist mode of production has equipped the economic system with a self-propelling mechanism that ensures long-term continuous growth (despite crises) in the productivity of labour that the introduction of new technologies and strategies, i.e., innovation as such, has been institutionalised. (Habermas, [1969] 1987, p. 247)

It is important to realise that the car industry is of great importance to Sweden’s economy (scb.se). Growth in the car industry has enormous spin-off effects on other industries; 1000 new jobs in the car industry means 1000 additional jobs elsewhere. Labour in the car industry has partly been transferred to other countries, but high-tech competence has remained in Sweden and the industry has a strong focus on technological development and innovation. This economic significance shines another light on the circumstance that Volvo, as well as Ericsson (a large company for digital technology), is participating in around a quarter of the 80 (personal mobility) projects in Drive Sweden. These large industries have an enormous influence on how our future mobility is imagined. Palmberg et al. comment, in an evaluation of the program Viable Cities, that actors that challenge the ‘current regime’ also need to be included (Palmberg et al., 2020), a comment that could have also been made regarding Drive Sweden. This is in line with earlier literature that observes that innovation practices seem to confirm or even strengthen existing hierarchies, sustain the exclusion of different groups and fail to include actors who could provide alternative perspectives (Psarikidou, 2015, 2020; Zhang, 2022).

5.1.1. Summing up

In summation, the quotes show that innovation is still mainly pushed by market-forces – rather than by societal problems – and still understood through the language of economics, despite the goals of sustainable mobility inherent in both strategic innovation programmes. The entanglement between innovation and economic growth (as measurement of progress) excludes a large role for cycling or seeing cycling-as-a-practice as innovation. Cycling – when not part of a bike-share system – is not associated with economic growth in the sense of the current paradigm that aims for quantitative economic growth. This is confirmed in research (Meulen & Mukhtar-Landgren, 2021) that has shown that – in Sweden – cycling largely falls outside of the growth discourse. However, when cycling is part of a sharing service that is commercialised, there is a possibility of rendering growth. This partly explains why only shared cycling is included in innovation projects.

5.2. Technological novelty

Technology and progress have been closely intertwined in Western historiography since the early nineteenth century. Through industrialisation and modernity, progress was often understood as based on different steps related to new technological innovations, where the ‘machine’ (from the printing press to the steam engine) was seen as the source of social and economic transformation (Mukhtar-Landgren, 2012). These beliefs have come to form the basis of a perceived historical pattern where new knowledge and technologies are seen to create new possibilities (Lasch, 1989, p. 229). Transport innovations are often associated with new technologies or services, moving from walking to horse-and-carriage, to cycling, to the train, the car, the aeroplane, the drone, etc., creating the image that new technologies are continuously replacing old ones, hence modernising movement at an increasing pace.

The preference for technology and new solutions is visible in the empirical material. Drive Sweden claims to follow ‘a new approach to mobility’ (Website, Feb 2023) and:

Drive Sweden is driving the development of digitised, connected, and shared mobility solutions for a sustainable transport system. (bold in original)

The assumption that new technologies create different forms of values is recurring in the material, and sometimes this value needs to be created, like in this quote from Viable cities:

Viable Cities works for information and communication technology and digitisation to be strong contributors to accelerating the transition towards sustainable energy systems for cities. (programme description of Viable Cities, p 3)

Yet other times, the process seems autodynamic, like in the quote below from Drive Sweden:

New and sustainable technology in mobility and transport services creates business opportunities. (website February 2023)

And from the website of Viable Cities:

Viable Cities aims to ‘spread and scale up new solutions with a focus on impact’. (February 2023)

Rosa argues that technological acceleration is often the consequence of the introduction of a new technology that aims to speed up certain processes (Rosa, 2010). Hence, transport innovation, following the argument of Rosa, intends to – besides speed up production and consumption – speed up transport itself, reduce pauses, impede a slowing-down, or destruct other obstacles for speeding-up. The mass production of the car is one of the most obvious examples of such an innovation (Urry, 2007). Possibilities for speeding up in the sense of increasing objective speed are limited, but a lot of time can supposedly be gained in making necessary transfers more seamless, and hence more convenient. Digitisation is an important tool to reach this.

The centrality of technology and technological novelties is driven by the goal to speed up processes and transport. Sheller and Urry (2006) point at the human will to connect (referring to Simmel) and Urry (2016) emphasises the significance of emotion. Besides the often-positive emotions that are associated with speed, there is also an idea that future systems ‘should be fashionable and faddish and win the hearts and minds by being more fun’ (Urry, 2016, p. 136). New technology takes the lead in this respect, reinforced by the idea that something new – preferably technology – is needed to achieve change and progression.

Vinnova itself acknowledges, in an evaluation of Drive Sweden and other programmes, that many projects focus on technology and autonomous vehicles and that there is a need for a more holistic perspective (Modig et al., 2018). Vinnova also notes, in an earlier report (Elg, 2014), that innovation does not have to be high-tech. However, the projects in Drive Sweden, where car industry and information and technology companies align, are very much high-tech.

5.2.1. Summing up and concluding

The empirical material shows that thinking about future (sustainable) mobility is dominated by solutions that give primacy to technology and novelties. The further diffusion of cycling (or e-biking) as such is not seen as part of innovation, with or without the help of technology. The material shows that e-biking is not a sufficiently ‘new’ technology if it is not shared. Yet, one can think of multiple ways in which (new) technology could be used to advance cycling or the bicycle and make it more convenient, comfortable, and faster, as seen in Nikolaeva et al.’s paper on smart cycling futures (Nikolaeva et al., 2019). However, judging by the role cycling plays in the empirical material, technological novelties serve that which is seen as progress (see also the former section) instead of sustainability.

5.3. Inevitability and the logic of no alternative

Innovation – and in particular, technological innovation – is seen as inevitable in order to survive in a capitalist society, aiming for an economy of constant growth, competitiveness, and commercialisation in the service of ‘progress’. In section 4.1 we already discussed ‘the slippery slope’ phenomenon, raised by Rosa, yet the inevitability of innovation is also inherently linked to the understanding of progress as improvement or ‘greater fitness for purpose’ (Metcalfe, 2001, p. 565). Such an understanding makes it very difficult to stand in the way of innovations, which are almost always initiated to improve something (Urry, 2016). This seemingly inevitability of (an) innovation and the idea that there is no alternative is associated with a ‘pro-innovation paradigm’, a belief that (an) innovation is always good. This has not always been the case. The meaning of innovation has gradually changed over the last 200 years (Godin & Dominique, 2017), from something negative towards a positive and fundamental concept of economic policy, in line with the modernist conception that the world is stable and needs innovation to change or revolutionise it (Godin, 2017). Earlier, in the sixteenth century it was, on the contrary, used to serve stabilisation. The world was seen as constantly changing, and innovation – in that time understood as imitation of successful deeds and a return to ancient institutions – was supposed to stabilise it (Ibid.) First in the twentieth century onwards, originality became a dominant construct, in the sense of ‘first commercialisation’. The meaning of innovation changed from imitation to ‘innovation as subversive of the established order’ (Ibid., 21).

The belief in the positive effects of new technology is evident in the empirical materialfor instance, on Viable Cities’ website (February 2023):

… we also assume that digitisation and digital tools can contribute to the big change in different ways. (our emphasis)

Positive expectations are also expressed within several of the projects, such as ‘Eldsjäl’, that received funding within Drive Sweden, for example:

Future vehicle concepts will be automated, shared, and likely also electrified. Properly applied, these will contribute to a sustainable transport system (project ‘Eldsjäl’ Drive Sweden)

Rosa attributes this logic of no alternative to the desynchronisation between the speed of innovation and the speed of policymaking. This desynchronisation decreases the ability to set political frames and directions: ‘…the idea of political steering has turned from an instrument of social dynamization in early and classical modernity into a hindrance or obstacle for further acceleration under late-modern conditions’ (Rosa, 2010, p. 72). Hasu et al. (2012) build on Bauman’s Liquid Modernity (2013) to raise the problem of the lack of reflexivity caused by innovations following each other very quickly, resulting in a less critical attitude toward innovations. The logic of no alternative is also fed by the increasing need for expert knowledge (Urry, 2016), which often places non-experts at a disadvantage in dialogues about alternative futures. The idea that the role of policy is not frame-setting but rather reacting becomes evident from the following quotes in the empirical material:

Vinnova writes on its website (February 2023):

We encourage organisations in different sectors to cooperate, changing existing laws and policies to pave the way for innovation that makes a difference. (our emphasis)

On the website for the project ‘policy lab’ within Drive Sweden:

In the policy lab, Swedish actors can increase their knowledge of how existing regulations support and hinder the market introduction of new technology and new services within Drive Sweden’s area of interest. (Website February 2023, our emphasis)

There is only one project (‘Future scenarios for self-driving vehicles in Sweden, Drive Sweden) that investigates the possible effects on the amount of car traffic. Some scenarios point at an increase of traffic, which would be very negative for people that use the streets and public space in other ways (playing, cycling, walking and socialising).

5.3.1. Summing up and concluding

The material reveals the assumption that automation, electrification, and sharing are inevitable and good. This understanding results in a rather uncritical or unreflexive belief in the contributions of innovation to competitiveness and the good cause of sustainability. Hence, the domination of solutions (mainly the automation of driving) that enhance the car (and to a lesser extent, public transport) entails an unreflexivity about the consequences for people that will not or cannot use those solutions and other modes such as walking and cycling.

Speed and acceleration are central to all three assumptions. Competitiveness and the constant urge for growth trigger innovation at an accelerating pace. Innovation is often equivalent with technological novelties that aim at speeding up processes and in transport – under influence of the car – also at increasing convenience. The speed of innovation outgrows the speed of policymaking which results, together with the belief in technology as solution, in an unreflexivity regarding effects of innovations. The consequences for the meaning of cycling in innovation are not exactly favourable.

6. Alternative conceptualisations

After having unpacked how dominant conceptualisations of innovation marginalise the role of cycling in Swedish innovation policy, we now turn to developing some alternative conceptualisations of innovation that may enhance the meaning of cycling. New conceptualisations arise first of all from criticism of the current ones and the negative consequences of acceleration seem to be a key issue in this.

6.1. Rethinking progress

Both Urry and Rosa emphasise the ‘accelerating turnover time in production, the “magnified speed” of transactions, the sense of an increasing pace of life, the shrinking of “time-horizons for decision-making”, the decline of a “waiting culture”, and the “proliferation of new products”’ (Rosa, 2010; Urry, 2000, p. 125, 129). Speed – saving time as well as increasing convenience – has become an overarching and addictive social norm and a main ingredient of progress, which gives rise to some serious consequences. Our analysis shows that innovation is very much entangled with progress, which in its turn is enmeshed with growth and competitiveness. A logical consequence of this interpretation is also the understanding of innovation as a technological novelty and something that is inevitable and always good.

Rosa’s fundamental critique is that acceleration – and hence progress – has outgrown the project of modernity. He argues that political reforms no longer serve the end of improving social conditions, according to democratically defined social goals. Instead, it is almost the ‘sole goal of political shaping to keep or make societies competitive, to sustain their acceleration capacities’ (Rosa, 2010, pp. 81–82). In line with this, one can argue that innovation is taken out of the political realm, despite its role in governing society (Pfotenhauer & Juhl, 2017). An example of such an innovation that has outgrown the project of modernity is the mass production of the car, originally an intrinsic ingredient of the modernity project (Sheller & Urry, 2000), promising high accessibility for all. Yet, it delivered this only for a part of the population, and for those it has become addictive, the other part feels decelerated. Rosa (Rosa, 2010) argues that supporting the car industry has no (ecological or social) sustainability motive; the sole goal is to keep the industry competitive.

Rosa offers an alternative conceptualisation to modernity’s conception of progress with the first meaning in his book Resonance: ‘If acceleration is the problem, then resonance may well be the solution’ (Rosa, 2019, p. 1). The problem with acceleration is that it has the tendency to escalate in a fundamental transformation in our relationship to time and space, to other people and to the world around us, resulting in alienation, or disturbance and disorder, and ultimately in a decrease of the quality of life (Ibid.) This has actually already happened. The opposite is resonance, which involves restoring balance in our connection to the world and ourselves.

For cycling to be enhanced, progress would need to be reconsidered in line with Rosa’s concept of resonance and not centred around economic growth, competitiveness, and technology. Cycling is rather linked to degrowth, which centralises well-being and health for all living creatures as well as for the planet. To decouple progress from economic growth demands a larger focus on the demand side instead of the supply side. In mobilities research, an alternative that is gaining support is the framing of ‘mobility as a commons’. This aims to ‘reconfigure the very relationship of humans with mobility and with each other’ (Nikolaeva et al., 2019, p. 348; Sheller, 2018) and is understood as ‘a process that encompasses governance shifts to more communal and democratic forms while also seeking to move beyond small-scale, niche interventions and projects’ (Nikolaeva et al., 2019, p. 353). Such ‘user-driven’ or ‘participatory forms of innovation’ might also slowdown the innovation process (Leitner, 2017, p. 211), which may increase reflexivity. A redefinition of progress that follows these lines of thinking could be ‘a planned reduction of energy and resource use designed to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that reduces inequality and improves human well-being’ (Hickel, 2021, p. 1105).

6.2. Rethinking technological novelties

The focus on technological novelties excludes other ways of tackling the problem (which in Drive Sweden is barely defined). To go beyond new technology, innovation (in transport) could be conceptualised as including also changing arrangements of movement, meaning, and practice, and a change of mobility cultures and discourses (Freudendal-Pedersen et al., 2020; Sheller, 2012). It obscures the view that the diffusion of existing products and practices, or even phasing out of old practices, can also be part of innovation. Cycling as such is not associated with something new in absolute terms. The electric bike already seems to become old; it is mainly the idea and implementation of e-biking within mobility as a service or other shared systems that is considered new. Besides a ‘technology-first’ attitude, there is also the matter of one or very few new technologies that come ‘first’. This risks the emergence of new technological lock-ins. After the first ‘Faustian bargain’ with machines in the nineteenth century, Urry notes a second bargain between humans and digitisation – ‘database-ization’ in his words (2007, 275) – creating a new technical lock-in, where there is ‘more or less no movement without digital tracing and tracking’ (Ibid., 276).

This simultaneously questions the meaning of ‘new’ in the conceptualisation of innovation (Godin, 2017; Goulet & Vinck, 2017). Schumpeter, seen as the father of innovation, makes a distinction between ‘primary or genuine innovation versus re-innovation, and between imitation and copy’ (Godin, 2017, p. 22). While innovation policy heavily leans on Schumpeter, this broader understanding seems to have been forgotten. The famous anthropologist Malinowski undermines the classical idea of innovation as the diffusion of an (original, new) invention and argues that mere ‘diffusion never takes place: it is always a readaptation, a truly creative process’ (Godin, 2017, p. 23, citing; Malinowski, 1927, p. 46). In other words, diffusion is never ‘copy and paste’ and the same counts for imitation. ‘new’ can also be ‘reinstating old’, in line with Shove (2012). We are already reinstating old arrangements in the quest for sustainability, such as buying locally grown food, promoting diets from the past, or reopening canals which have previously been replaced by roads (Ibid.) Shove argues that a ‘process of reintroduction [of a large role for cycling] has much in common with that of a first-time innovation: in both cases, competencies have to be built, connections made, and markets established’ (Ibid., 368).

6.3. Rethinking inevitability

The unequal character of automobility – as a project of modernity – is just one example that shows that progress is not even; improvement in one direction is always followed by deterioration or destruction in others – in other words, there are winners and losers, albeit often unintended. The idea that innovation is inevitable and always good (conceptualised above as a pro-innovation bias) entails a fundamental unreflexivity. In the case of transport innovation, this is, for instance, expressed in a lack of concern for both the unequal access to systems of mobility (and immobility) and the unequal distribution of burdens of those systems (Sheller & Urry, 2000).

This lack of reflexivity about the consequences of innovation does not only concern inequality. Innovations have unintended consequences when they try to ‘synchronise with other elements in a putative new system’ (Urry, 2016, p. 75) and one of those is increased energy use in the form of rebound effects (Paterson, 2007; Urry, 2016). Rosa expands on the idea of (de)synchronisation and relates it to acceleration; he argues that acceleration sets in motion a process of desynchronisation resulting in an ‘overburden of time-frames of surrounding nature’ (Rosa, 2010, p. 70). As he formulates it: ‘whenever two processes interlock, i.e. whenever they are synchronised, the speeding up of one of them puts the other under time-pressure – unless it speeds up too, it is perceived as an annoying break or hindrance’ (Ibid., 69). Rosa even illustrates this by using the example of a trip-chain where part of the chain is sped-up but not the other, which means either extra waiting time (which feels like a waste of time) or alternatively speeding up or adapting the other one too. One would also think that speeding-up commuting time would result in an augmentation of free time, hence a slowing-down of the pace of life. This is, however, not the case. Distances and activities have instead increased to such a degree that this outweighs the time that is won by speeding up transport in the first place (Ibid.) All those phenomena increase the use and/or deterioration of natural resources. Energy use is inherent to technology and ‘novel technologies call forth further novel technologies’ (Urry, 2016, p. 77, citing; Arthur, 2013, p. 5). Rethinking inevitability comprises a much greater amount of reflexivity in relation to the effects innovations and technology have on society than we have encountered in our analysis.

7. Conclusion

Our aim was to unpack and problematise the relationship between competitiveness and sustainability in national innovation policies in the transport field; to unravel contradictions and obstacles to the sustainability project; and to point toward potential alternatives. We did this by problematising dominant conceptualisations of innovation policy in field of sustainable mobility and by unpacking how they affect the position of cycling. Building on definitions of innovation, we developed three key assumptions: innovation as progress, innovation as a technological novelty, and innovation as something inevitable. In our analysis, we juxtaposed Hartmut Rosa’s critical work on modernity and acceleration, Sheller and Urry’s theories on mobilities – including contributions from followers to this field – and critical innovation studies.

We observed, in line with the already-observed uneven relationship between competitiveness and sustainability in innovation, that the position of cycling in innovation policy and projects is marginal. The result of our unpacking of dominating assumptions is threefold. First, the conceptualisation of progress – on which innovation leans so heavily – with primacy for growth, does not stimulate placing cycling high on the innovation agenda. Second, despite innovations such as the e-bike, or improvements in cargo bikes, the bicycle and cycling have difficulties appearing as ‘new’, in contrast to the car and driving, which succeed in reinventing themselves over and over to appear ‘new’, as the epitome of progress. Third, the strong belief in the positive effects of automation, digitisation and sharing – equivalent with our future mobility as it seems – obstructs a fundamental questioning of automobility.

The conceptualisation of progress seems to be an essential building block – or rather the foundation – that prevents innovation policy from having a stronger sustainability agenda. Just like we have to redefine what constitutes ‘good weather’ in light of the climate crisis, we also have to reconsider what constitutes progress. Acknowledging the blind spots related to inequality and excessive resource and energy use must be part of such a redefinition. Urry argues that a conception of progress has to account for the fact that a lot of what is done in the name of progress requires ‘suffering, struggle and conflict’ (Urry, 2016, p. 85).

An alternative interpretation of progress – in line with possible alternative conceptualisations – logically also questions the role and primacy of technological novelties and the direction this technology takes us. As several scholars argue (e.g. Urry, 2016), it is not technology in itself that accelerates energy and resource use, it is what we wish to use technology for, how we use it and how we relate to it. Currently, in transport, the wish to develop a certain technology is often driven by competitiveness, commercialisation, or the wish to increase convenience or speed, and not by sustainability goals. This makes the view and the use of technology an important building block that prevents more sustainable approaches in innovation policy. A turnaround would bring innovation policy with its new-technology bias back into the political realm and, as such, depart from the needs of human and environment, which can possibly – but not always – be satisfied by new technology, instead of the other way around.

Our paper does not pose that the discussed assumptions make it impossible for cycling to have a larger role. It is likely that in countries with high cycle shares, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, cycling is better represented in innovation policy. However, under the same assumptions, cycling innovation will probably reflect the same surge for speed, convenience, and commodification (see Nikolaeva et al., 2019). While being a bit more sustainable this will still prevent a fundamental questioning of automobility.

With this study we empirically substantiate earlier claims that economic motives are prioritised over sustainability motives in innovation policies. With the crossovers between Rosa’s theory of acceleration, mobilities research and critical innovation studies we also introduced new perspectives into critical transport research. For example, how to understand the constant drive for convenience and seamlessness in transport in light of an all-encompassing process of acceleration.

Building on Rosa, Sheller, Urry, other mobility scholars and critical innovation research, we illustrated that adding sustainability as a goal in innovation policy beyond the traditional competitiveness is not sufficient when the interpretation of innovation does not change. This calls for continuous reflexivity and an ongoing process of questioning promising new concepts and buzzwords, to not deprive them from their radical potential by reproducing conventional underlying assumptions (cf. Westman and Castán Broto; Lindberg et al., 2023).

Acknowledgments

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. https://dashbords.sdgindex.org/rankings

2. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/worlds-most-innovative-countries-economy

3. Drive Sweden – Vår vision – Nya synsätt på mobilitet – YouTube.

Appendix 1.

Empirical material

Table

Material	Consulted sources – Link or reference
Vinnova’s website − Viable Cities’ website and project database	https://vinnova.se
Vinnova reports	- Utvärdering strategiska innovationsprogram 2018 (evaluation report) (Modig et al., 2018) - Mission-oriented innovation – a handbook from Vinnova (Hill, 2022) - Förutsättningar för systeminnovation för en hållbar framtid (Analysbilaga) (Vinnova, 2019) All accessible on https://vinnova.se
Drive Sweden’s website, project database, calls, and YouTube channel	https://www.drivesweden.net https://www.drivesweden.net/projekt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmYsWYDQxul
Viable Cities website, project database, program description, calls and YouTube clip	https://viablecities.se https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s-3NYSKDI4
Viable Cities, evaluation report	Viable Cities: Utvärdering av ett strategiskt innovationsprogram (Palmberg et al., 2020)

Appendix 2.

Drive Sweden projects November 2022-February 2023. goods excluded. HTTPS://WWW.DRIVESWEDEN.NET/PROJEKT and HTTPS://VINNOVA.SE

Table

	Name of project	Funding in SEK	Partners	Link
1	4All	200.000	VTI, Linköpings kommun, Transdev, Östgötatrafiken, Mjärdevi Science Park, Akademiska hus samt kommuner, städer och regioner i de workshops som anordnas.	4All | Drive Sweden
2	5 G Ride	Krabat	Urban ICT Arena/Kista Science City, Ericsson, Keolis	5 G Ride | Drive Sweden https://www.drivesweden.net/sites/default/files/2021–11/final_report_5g_ride_2020_1.1–1.pdf
3	(AVTCT) Automated Vehicle Traffic Control Tower: Phase 1 2017–2018	1,174,279	Integrated Transport Research Lab at KTH (coordinator), Mobile Services Lab at KTH, Carmenta, Ericsson, Scania, Volvo och Trafikverket.	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/automated-vehicle-traffic-control-tower-2/
4	AVTCT Phase 2 2019–2021	3,000,000	ITRL – Integrated Transport Research Lab at KTH, Trafikverket, Carmenta, Volvo, Ericsson, Scania, Telia	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/automated-vehicle-traffic-control-tower-2/
5	Business models för robotaxis	1,181,838	Handelshögskolan i Stockholm – Institutionen för Entreprenörskap, innovation och teknologi	Affärsmodeller för robotaxi | Drive Sweden
6	AHA – A Human Approach – avslutad	2,038,668	Högskolan i Halmstad, Göteborg, Helsingborg, Volvo	AHA – A Human Approach | Drive Sweden
7	AHA II – A Human Approach II Living Labs – design av framtidens mobilitet i den smartare staden med människan i centrum	7,412,000	Halmstad University, Volvo Cars (Human-Centric Lab), Gothenburg City, Helsingborg City, Skånetrafiken, Västtrafik	AHA II – A Human Approach II | Drive Sweden
8	AI Aware	3,909,718	Volvo Car Corporation (Koordinator), Zenseact, Carmenta, Ericsson, HERE Technology, Trafikverket, City of Gothenburg, Lindholmen Science Park	AI Aware | Drive Sweden
9	AI driven mobility	1,734,800	Lindholmen Science Park AB AFRY, AI Sweden, Chalmers, CLOSER, DOKIV, Drive Sweden, Ericsson, Kista Science City, Malmö Universitet, Nordvästra Skånes Renhållnings AB (NSR), Polestar Performance, Region Jönköpings län, Region Örebro län, Sjöfartsverket, Trafikverket, Borås Universitet (Centrum för digitalisering), UniqueSec, Univrses, Viscando, AB Volvo, VTI, Västra Götalandsregionen, Zenseact, Örebro kommun	AI driven Mobility | Vinnova https://www.ai.se/en/node/81535/ai-driven-mobility
10	AI-driven mobilitet, fas 2: AI Enhanced Mobility	2,018,750	AFRY, AI Sweden, Chalmers, CLOSER, DOKIV, Drive Sweden, Ericsson, Kista Science City, Malmö Universitet, Nordvästra Skånes Renhållnings AB (NSR), Polestar Performance, Region Jönköpings län, Region Örebro län, Sjöfartsverket, Trafikverket, Borås Universitet genom Centrum för digitalisering, UniqueSec, Univrses, Viscando, AB Volvo, VTI, Västra Götalandsregionen, Zenseact, Örebro kommun	AI-driven mobilitet | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/p/ai-enhanced-mobility/
11	Autonomous city buses 2017–2020	Krabat	Volvo Bussar, Västra Götalandsregionen, Västtrafik, Göteborgs Stads trafikkontor och stadsbyggnadskontor, Keolis, Chalmers tekniska högskola	Automatisering av stadsbussar busståg, hållplatsdockning och depåprocesser | Vinnova
12	Automation for increased accessibility 2016–2017	397.100	Norconsult Astando, Viktoria Swedish ICT, Norconsult, Synskadades riksförbund (SRF), Förbundet för ett samhälle utan rörelsehinder (DHR), Västra Götalandsregionen – sektion Sjukresor avdelningarna E-hälsa och Folkhälsa, Västtrafik, Volvo Cars, Göteborgs Stad, Göteborgs universitet – institutionen för pedagogik och specialpedagogik	Automatisering för ökad tillgänglighet | Drive Sweden
13	Autonomous Site – Confined Autonomous Solution test and validation – avslutad	3,000,000	Volvo Group, Ericsson, Telia, RISE	Autonomous Site – Confined Autonomous Solution test and validation | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/p/autonomous-site/
14	Autopiloten i Barkaby 2017–202	Krabat	Nobina, Stockholms Läns Landsting, Järfälla Kommun, KTH	Autopiloten i Barkarby | Drive Sweden
15	BASE – Brunnshög automated sustainable electromobility 2022–2023	387.000	Lunds kommun, NEVS, LKF och K2, Nationellt kunskapscentrum för kollektivtrafik	https://www.vinnova.se/p/project-base—brunnshog-automated-sustainable-electromobility/
16	CoMiMo Connected Micro Mobility 2022–2024	1,945,300	Lunds Universitet, CIKLO, Foodora, Vialumina, Nordstan, Högskolan Borås	CoMiMo Connected Micro Mobility | Vinnova
17	Data driven policy development	1,200,000	Vinnova, Formas, Energimyndigheten, IBM och Trafikverket. Leddes av RISE Viktora	Datadriven policyutveckling | Vinnova
18	Delta 2020–2021	1,152,184	Kista Science City, Keolis, Ericsson	DELTA | Vinnova
19	Demonstration of technology to identify the movement in a city	669.000	Commuter Computing (The Train Brain), Östgötatrafiken, Linköpings kommun, Hi3G	Demonstration av teknik for att identifiera rörelsen i en stad | Vinnova
20	The Effects of the Automated Transportation System – SEVS for AD 2016–2017	985.750	Chalmers Tekniska Högskola Aktiebolag SAFER – Fordons- och trafiksäkerhetscentrum, Göteborg Stad, Trafikkontoret, Göteborgs Universitet Företagsekonomiska institutionen, Malmeken AB, SP Sveriges, Tekniska Forskningsinstitut AB, Trafikverket, Uniti AB, VTI, Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut, Volvo Car Group AB	SEVS för AD | Drive Sweden
21	DigInfra	1,228,348	Göteborgs Stad, Linköpings kommun, Lunds kommun, Stockholms Stad, Trafikverket	DigInfra | Drive Sweden https://www.futurebylund.se/project/kraftsamling-ska-ta-bort-hinder-for-framtidens-transporter
22	Digital Fleet Optimizer 2021–2022	2,964,000	CEVT, Taxi Göteborg, HERE Solutions Sweden	Digital Fleet Optimizer | Vinnova
23	Digital Platform 2022–2023 (cloud platform Drive Sweden Innovation cloud)	3,200,000	Qlik, Saab Combitech, VOI Total	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/digital-platform/
24	Drive Sweden – System and services för mobility − 2016	6,240,171	Ericsson AB	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/drive-sweden—system-and-services-for-mobility—2016/
25	Drive Sweden – System and Services for Mobility, 2017–2018	12,500,000	Ericsson AB	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/drive-sweden-system-and-services-mobility-2017–2018
26	Drive Sweden – System and Services för mobility, 2019–2020	6,576,850	Ericsson AB	https://www.vinnova.se/p/drive-sweden—system-och-tjanster-for-mobilitet-2019–2020/
27	Drive Sweden – System and services för mobility, 2021	2,500,425	Ericsson AB	https://www.vinnova.se/p/drive-sweden—system-och-tjanster-for-mobilitet-2021/
28	Drive Sweden Business Model Lab 2019 – 2020	1,300,000	KTH ITRL, Sustainable Innovation, EasyMile, Applied Autonomy, Kyyti, Go Mobile As, Arthur D. Little AB, Freelway, ElonRoad, DHL, Vattenfall, Ragn-Sells, Bring.	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/drive-sweden-business-model-lab/
29	Drive Sweden Business Model Lab 2020–2021	600.000		https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/drive-sweden-business-model-lab2/?_t_tags=language:sv,siteid:6a0eda26-a5be-4f47-a778-b9393a63f812&_t_hit.id=Vinnova_Models_Pages_ProjectPage/_87cd42df-a56a-4f24-bd03-962314f1bd53_sv&_t_hit.pos=3
30	Drive Sweden Business Model Lab 2021–2023	2,000,000		https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/drive-sweden-business-model-lab3/
31	Drive SwEden InnoVation clOud muLtimodal serVicE (Evolve) 2021	2,000,000	RISE, Ericsson One, KTH, Dyno Robotics, Keolis	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/drivesweden-innovation-cloud-multimodal-service/
32	Drive Sweden Coordination 2019–2021	17,500,000	Lindholmen Science Park AB	https://www.vinnova.se/p/drive-sweden-koordination-2019–2021/
33	Drive Sweden Coordination Etapp 3 2022 – 2024	12,500,000	Lindholmen Science Park AB	https://www.vinnova.se/p/drive-sweden-koordinering-etapp-3/
34	Krabat Policy Lab 2017–2019	Krabat	RISE, with input from The Government Offices, The Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, The Ministry of Finance, Swedish Transport Agency, Scania, Skatteverket, GoMore, SnappCar, WSP, Move About, Jönköpings Kommun, Benify, ÅF (Afry), Region Östergötland, IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/krabat-policy-lab
35	Drive Sweden Policy Lab 2019/2020	1,808,000	RISE (coordinator), Nobina Technology, Univrses, Observit, Järfälla kommun, Region Stockholm, Barkarby Science, Trafikverket, GoMore, Flexidrive/SnappCar, Heapsters/Heap, Hygglo, Coneeds/ihopa, Ezeride	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/drive-sweden-policy-lab-20192020
36	Drive Sweden Policy Lab 2021/2022	1,684,121	RISE (coordinator), Nobina Technology, Univrses, Observit, Järfälla kommun, Region Stockholm, Barkarby Science, Trafikverket, GoMore, Flexidrive/SnappCar, Heapsters/Heap, Hygglo, Coneeds/ihopa, EzerideSE (coordinator), Nobina Technology, Univrses, Observit, Järfälla kommun, Region Stockholm, Barkarby Science, Trafikverket, GoMore, Flexidrive/SnappCar, Heapsters/Heap, Hygglo, Coneeds/ihopa, Ezeride	Drive Sweden Policy Lab 2021/22 | Vinnova https://www.vinnova.se/p/drive-sweden-policy-lab-202122/https://www.ri.se/sv/vad-vi-gor/projekt/drive-sweden-policy-lab-202122
37	Drive Sweden Policy Lab 2023–25	Unknown	RISE	Drive Sweden Policy Lab 2023–25 | RISE
38	DS Test Site Göteborg 2016–2017	700.000	RISE	DS Test Site Göteborg | Vinnova
39	Electric self-driving vehicles in the future decarbonised transport system(Eldsjäl) 2020–2021	894.887	Koordinator Göteborgs kommun, trafikkontoret	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/electric-self-driving-vehicles-in-the-future-decarbonised-transport-system/
40	Electric, shared, autonomous vehicles II (Eldsjäl II) 2022	153.418	Trivector Traffic AB	Eldsjäl II | Vinnova
41	EU-coordination Drive Sweden 2020–2021	399.999	VTI	EU-koordination Drive Sweden | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/p/eu-koordinering-drive-sweden/
42	FlexGate 2022–2023	500.000	Johanneberg Science Park AB	FlexGate | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/p/flexgate/
43	Future scenarios for self-driving vehicles in Sweden	Unknown	ITRL – Integrated Transport Research Lab at KTH, VTI	Framtida scenarier för självkörande fordon i Sverige | Drive Sweden https://www.drivesweden.net/sites/default/files/2021–11/future_scenarios_for_self-driving_vehicles_in_sweden.pdf
44	French Swedish mobility innovation umbrella 2019	1,000,000	Rise Research Institutes of Sweden AB	https://www.vinnova.se/p/franskt-svenskt-innovationsparaply-for-smart-mobilitet/
45	Roadmap for sustainable mobility solutions based on autonomous driving in a complex city environment 2022–2023	1,190,000	AFRY, AstaZero, CEVT, Keolis, Klimator, NEVS, Nobina, Skanska, Trafikkontoret Göteborg	https://www.vinnova.se/p/roadmap-for-sustainable-mobility-solutions-based-on-autonomous-driving-in-a-complex-city-environment/
46	Roadmap Färingsö 2022–2023	1,647,500	Sustainable Innovation, Region Stockholm, K2 - Nationellt Kunskapscentrum för Kollektivtrafik/Malmö University	Färdplan Färingsö | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/p/fardplan-faringso—mot-morgondagens-kollektivtrafik-for-landsbygden/
47	Preparatory project Testbed AV Trollhättan 2022–2023	250.000	Trollhättans kommun	https://www.vinnova.se/p/forberedelseprojekt-testbadd-av-trollhattan/
48	Improved Testing of Self-Driving Vehicles in Challenging Traffic Situations (2020)	Krabat	AstaZero, Viscando, Zenseact	Förbättrad testning av självkörande fordon i utmanande trafiksituationer | Drive Sweden https://www.drivesweden.net/sites/default/files/2021–11/improved_testing_astazero-1.pdf
49	CeViSS – Cloud enhanced cooperative traffic safety using vehicle sensor data (2020)	3,411,720	Carmenta, Veoneer, CEVT, Volvo Cars and Ericsson	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/ceviss-cloud-enhanced-cooperative-traffic-safety-using-vehicle-sensor-data https://www.vinnova.se/p/forbattrad-trafiksakerhet-genom-samordnad-anvandning-av-sensordata-fran-fordon/
50	Guidance for journeys with highly automated vehicles for blind, deaf, and deaf-blind persons (2019–2020)	928.314	Örebro universitet, Norconsult Astando, Västtrafik, VGR Sjukresor, Synskadades riksförbund, Pariception AB. Koordinerande organisation: RISE Viktoria	Guidning för resor med autonoma fordon för blinda, döva och dövblinda | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/p/guidning-till-autonoma-fordon-for-blinda-dova-och-dovblinda/
51	Heudris – Horizon, Europe and Drive Sweden 2022–2023	520.000	Autoliv, Chalmers, RISE, Volvo Group	HEUDRIS – Horizon, EUrope och DrIve Sweden | Vinnova
52	Autonomous transport system 2016–2017	450.900	Stadsbyggnadskontoret Göteborgs stad, SAFER, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/autonomous-transport-system
53	Sustainable mobility services (2017–2019), Scania Go	3,576,800	Kungliga Tekniska högskolan, Verdict AB, Scania CV Aktiebolag	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/sustainable-mobility-services
54	Intelligent and self-learning traffic control with 3D & AI 2020–2021	1,220,000	Viscando, Swarco, Uppsala kommun	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/intelligent-and-self-learning-traffic-control-3d-ai
55	Intelligent decision support systems for developed planning of the transport system 2020–2021	Unknown	AI Sweden, Drive Sweden, Trafikverket	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/intelligent-decision-support-systems-developed-planning-transport-system
56	Interlink	1,465,000	Veridict AB, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan	Interlink | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/p/interlink/
57	Climate-smart mobility 2030 2021–2023	1,500,000	Lindholmen Science Park Drive Sweden, Viable Cities	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/climate-smart-mobility-2030 https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/coordination-climate-smart-mobility-2030/
58	Kompis	8,288,000	KOMPIS är initierat av Regeringens samverkansgrupp för Nästa generations resor och transporter, och är ett projekt under Drive Sweden, finansierat av Vinnova.	KOMPIS | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/p/kombinerad-mobilitet—implementering-i-sverige-kompis/https://www.drivesweden.net/sites/default/files/2021–11/kompis_slutrapport_publik_small.pdf
59	LIMA – Lindholmen Integrated Mobility Arena (cycling not included) 2018–2022	24,117,775	Lindholmen Science Park AB	LIMA – Lindholmen Integrated Mobility Arena | Vinnova https://www.drivesweden.net/sites/default/files/2022–08/lima_slutrapport_211221_final.pdf https://www.drivesweden.net/lima https://www.drivesweden.net/en/how-service-works
60	MaaS för Sustainable Cities 2021–2023	1,540,000	Statens Väg- & Transportforskningsinstitut, K2	https://www.vinnova.se/p/maas-for-sustainable-cities/https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/maas-sustainable-cities
61	Methods and measures for evaluating an automated transport system (2016–2017)	530.000	Trafikverket, Viktoria Swedish ICT, VTI, Autoliv,Sweco	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/methods-and-measures-evaluating-automated-transport-system
62	Multi-Fleet Coordination and Collaboration – integrating vehicles and riders (inom Drive Sweden) 2022–2023	1,094,459	Veridict (koordinator), Björcks Busstrafik, Blåklintsbuss, Charterbuss, Ericsson, Högbergs Bussresor, Lönns Buss, MK Bussresor.	https://www.vinnova.se/p/multi-fleet-coordination-and-collaboration—integrating-vehicles-and-riders/
63	One-stop-shop for goods & personal mobility – new business models and policies for shared mobility hub 2022	1,245,000	Urbanivation (koordinator), Kungsbacka kommun, Aranäs fastigheter, Okidoki arkitekter.	https://www.vinnova.se/p/one-stop-shop-for-gods–och-personmobilitet–nya-affarsmodeller-och-policys-for-delad-mobilitetshub/
64	Platform for a quick and effective implementation of digital infrastructure for the transportation system 2019–2020	200.000	Rise, Trafikverket	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/platform-quick-and-effective-implementation-digital-infrastructure-transportation-system
65	Roadmap for sustainable mobility solutions based on autonomous driving in a complex city environment 2022–2023	1,190,000	AFRY, AstaZero, CEVT, Keolis, Klimator, NEVS, Nobina, Skanska, Trafikkontoret Göteborg	Roadmap for sustainable mobility solutions based on autonomous driving in a complex city environment | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/roadmap-for-sustainable-mobility-solutions-based-on-autonomous-driving-in-a-complex-city-environment/
66	Advanced Cooperative Driver Assistance for Connected and Autonomous AD and ADAS Vehicles 2018–2019	3,261,757	Carmenta, Volvo Cars, CEVT, Ericsson, RISE	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/advanced-cooperative-driver-assistance-connected-and-autonomous-ad-and-adas-vehicles
67	Ridesharing for business trips by rental car 2022–2024	1,140,000	RISE, Freelway, Europcar, Sandvik, Scania	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/ridesharing-for-business-trips-by-rental-car/
68	Synergetic Autonomous Transport (SAT) 2022–2023	3,999,677	Akademiska Hus, Chalmers, Chalmersfastigheter, Ericsson, Framtiden Byggutveckling, Göteborgs Stad Trafikkontoret, Göteborgs Universitet, Hugo Delivery, Johanneberg Science Park, Keolis, Landvetter Södra Utveckling AB, MölnDala Fastighets AB, PostNord, Riksbyggen, Skanska, Tele2, Västtrafik, Wallenstam	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/synergetic-autonomous-transport
69	Security for autonomous vehicles from a societal and safety perspective 2019–2020	572.000	RISE, Scania, Transdev, Combitech, Ericsson, NFC	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/security-autonomous-vehicles-societal-and-safety-perspective https://www.vinnova.se/p/sakerhet-for-autonoma-fordon-ur-ett-samhalls–och-systemperspektiv/
70	Services with shared automated vehicles – Research & Assessment in a 1st pilot (SARA1) 2016–2018	1,100,000	KTH – Integrated Transport Research Lab, Nobina	Services with Shared Automated Vehicles – Research & Assessment in a 1st pilot – SARA1 | Vinnova
71	Sharing Economics and Acceptance of Smart Mobility – SESMA 2019–2020	3,058,567	NEVS, Trollhättans Stad, RISE	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/sharing-economics-and-acceptance-smart-mobility-sesma https://www.vinnova.se/p/delningsekononomi-och-acceptans-av-smart-mobilitet/
72	Shared Shuttle Services (S3) 2017–2020	Krabat	Holo, RISE, Chalmers, Chalmers Fastigheter, Göteborgs Stads Parkering AB, Älvstranden Utveckling AB, Karlastaden Utveckling AB, Ericsson, Sunfleet, Göteborgs Stad Trafikkontoret, Förvaltnings AB Framtiden, Västtrafik, Göteborgs Stad Stadsbyggnadskontoret, Härryda Kommun	Shared Shuttle Services (S3) | Drive Sweden
73	Countryside self-driving vehicles 2020–2021	1,559,000	RISE, Eskilstuna, Lund, Skellefteå, Gotland, Trafikverket, Ramböll	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/countryside-selfdriving-vehicles—possibilities-and-challenges/
74	Self-driving, shared, electric vehicles in a system solution 2017–2021 - Krabat (in total 6 projects)	46,960,000	Lindholmen Science Park AB	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/self-driving-shared-electric-vehicles-in-a-system-solution/https://www.drivesweden.net/projekt/krabat
75	Stockholm Virtual City 2020–2021	3,290,495	Univrses, Stockholms stad, Taxi Stockholm	Sthlm Virtual City | Vinnova
76	System Solutions for Shared Cars (2017–2019	Krabat	Volvo Cars, Hertz, Sunfleet	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/system-solutions-shared-cars
77	Tunnll (2017–2018)	2,869,425	Björks & Byberg AB, Malmö Högskola, Skanatek AB	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/tunnll
78	Connected Traffic Signals 2017–2019	Krabat	Volvo Cars, Volvo Trucks, Trafikverket, Uppsala kommun, Swarco, Stockholms Stad, Scania, RISE, Göteborgs Stad, Ericsson	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/connected-traffic-signals
79	Welcome on board 2029–2020	2,620,000	Veridict AB, RISE Viktoria, Keolis Sverige AB, Skånetrafiken, Värmlandstrafik AB samt Trafikverket.	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/welcome-board
80	VaVim – Validering av virtuella modeller för simulering av autonoma fordonssystem	806.556	Volvo Autonomous Solutions, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola	VaVim – Validering av virtuella modeller för simulering av autonoma fordonssystem | Drive Sweden https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/vavim—validation-of-virtual-models-used-for-simulation-of-autonomous-vehicle-systems/
81	Increased use of property-related electric bicycle pools 2022–2023	710.807	Cykelpoolen, Rise Research Institutes of Sweden AB	https://www.drivesweden.net/en/project/increased-use-property-related-electric-bicycle-pools
		23,67,70,358

Appendix 3.

Mobility-related projects Viable Cities on website https://en.viablecities.se/foi-projekt, November 2022-February 2023

Table

	Name of project	Funding in SEK	Partners	Link
1	Activity-based energy and mobility modelling for future cities 2019–2021	4,409,448	Uppsala University, Dalarna University, KTH, WSP, Vattenfall R&D, Borlänge Energi, Borlänge Municipality	Activity-based energy and mobility modelling for future cities – Viable Cities
2	City as a platform CaaP (coordinated with sister project IoT Sweden) 2018–2021	6,000,000	Gothenburg, Malmö, Lund, Karlskrona, Kalmar, Stockholm, Uppsala, Hudiksvall, Umeå, Skellefteå, Katrineholm, Helsingborg, Västerås, Eskilstuna, Linköping, Sundsvall, Örebro, Halmstad, KTH, Mobile Heights, LTU, IVL, Kista Science City (Urban ICT Arena), SIS, RISE – Research Institutes of Sweden.	City as a Platform — Viable Cities
3	Climate fight Uppsala 2018–2020	3,879,895	Uppsala Municipality, Chalmers University of Technology, Kyla AB, Region Uppsala (county traffic), Uppsalahem AB, Svenska Kyrkan (Uppsala Pastorat), Studiefrämjandet Uppsala, University of Gothenburg.	Climate Struggle Uppsala – Viable Cities https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5dd54ca29c9179411df12b85/t/5f4e5b84909df402e28559c9/1598970760850/Broschyr-om-Klimatla%CC%88tt-Uppsala.pdf
4	Climate neutral cities 3030
	Climate neutral Enköping 2030 (Climate city contract) Wave 1 2019–2021	4,099,000	Enköping Municipality, RISE – Research Institutes of Sweden, Europan Sweden, ÅF Infrastructure AB and ICA Maxi	Climate Neutral Enköping 2030 — Viable Cities
	Climate Neutral Enköping 2030 Wave 2 (2021–2024)	4,750,000	Municipality of Enköping, Europan, STUNS, Rise, Mälardalen Energy Office, ElectriCity, AFRY, Andersson Company AB, Mediehuset UNT, ENA-energi, Enköpings Hyresbostäder EHB	Climate Neutral Enköping 2030 — Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Gothenburg 2030 Wave 1 2019–2021	3,332,848	City of Gothenburg (Environmental Administration, Traffic Office, City Planning Office, Social Resource Management, Consumer and Citizen Service, City Management Office), Business Region Gothenburg, Parking Company City of Gothenburg, Gothenburg Region Municipal Association, IVL, RISE – Research Institutes of Sweden, School of Economics at the University of Gothenburg, Visual Arena Göteborg and Lindholmen Science Park	Climate Neutral Gothenburg 2030 — Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Gothenburg 2030 Wave 2 2021–2024	4,999,281	city of Gothenburg, Business Region Göteborg, Göteborg Energi AB, Digidem Lab, Lindholmen Science Park, Urban Futures, CIIST	Climate Neutral Gothenburg 2030 — Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Barkabystaden wave 1 2019–2021	3,000,628	Järfälla Municipality, Barkarby Science, NCC, ÅF, Södertörn University and E.ON.	Climate Neutral Järfälla – Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Järfälla 2030 wave 2 2021–2024 (Phase 2 of the project climate neutral Barkabystaden)	4,948,750	Järfälla Municipality, Barkaby Science, E.ON, Skanska, KTH	Climate Neutral Järfälla – Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Lund 2030 Wave 1 2019–2021	4,799,980	Lund Municipality, Idean, ustwo, Lund University (Urban arena), K2 National Knowledge Centre for Public Transport, IVL and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation	Climate Neutral Lund 2030 — Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Malmö 2030 Wave 1	4,946,842	City of Malmö, VA SYD, Sysav, E.ON, Trivector AB, Ericsson, Lund University and RISE – Research Institutes of Sweden	Climate Neutral Malmö 2030 — Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Malmö 2030 Wave 2 2021–2024	4,999,750	city of Malmö, E.ON, Rise, Sweco, Lund University, SWECO, Malmö Ideella
	Climate neutral Stockholm 2030 Wave 1 2019–2021	4,884,000	City of Stockholm (city manager office, city planning office, traffic office, development office and environmental administration), Stockholm Exergi, Ellevio, RISE – Research Institutes of Sweden (Urban Development, Energy Systems, ICT) and KTH (Energy Technology and Urban and Regional Studies)	Climate Neutral Stockholm 2030 — Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Stockholm 2030 Wave 2 2021–2024	5,000,000	city of Stockholm, KTH, Stockholm Vatten och Avfall AB, Skolfastigheter i Stockholm AB, Myrorna, Refurn AB
	Climate neutral Stora Sköndal 2019–2022	5,000,000	Stiftelsen Stora Sköndal, Envac AB, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (KTH)	Klimatneutrala Stora Sköndal — Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Umeå 2030 Wave 1 2019–2021	4,000,000	Umeå Municipality, Umeå Energy, Umeå University, eXpression, BioFuel Region, The Network for Sustainable Construction and Management and Swedavia	https://en.viablecities.se/foi-projekt/klimatneutrala-umea-2030
	Climate nettral Umeå 2030 Wave 2 2021–2024	5,000,000	Municipality of Umeå, Umeå University, Umeå Energy, Rise, SLU Coompanion
	Climate neutral Uppsala Wave 1	4,845,181		Climate Neutral Uppsala 2030 — Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Växjö 2030 Wave 1 2019–2021	3,519,187	Henrik JohanssonProject partners: Växjö municipality, Växjö municipality company (Växjö Energi AB, Vöfab, Växjöbostäder, Vidingehem and Videum) and Linnaeus University	Climate Neutral Växjö 2030 — Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Växjö 2030 Wave 2 2021–2024	4,995,402	Växjö municipality, Växjö kommunföretag AB, Södra Smålands Avfall och Miljö (SSAM), Linnaeus University, Godahus
	Climate neutral Kalmar 2030 2021–2024	4,727,912	Municipality of Kalmar, Linnaeus University, Föreningen GodaHus, Rise, Energikontoret Sydost, IUC Kalmar län	Research and innovation projects – Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Karlstad 2030 2021–2024	5,000,000	Municipality of Karlstad, Karlstad innovation park, Region Värmland, Karlstad University, Centrum Karlstad, Värmland nature conservation association, property owners, Agenda 2030 Protocol, Värmland network of non-profit organisations	Research and innovation projects – Viable Cities
	Climate neutral Kristianstad 2030 2021–2024	4,989,362	Kristianstad Municipality, Kristianstad University, Krinova Science & Incubator Park, Skånetrafiken, Hushållningssällskapet Kristianstad, Naturskyddsföreningen
	Climate neutral Linköping 2030 2021–2024	49,18,739	Linköping Municipality, Linköping University, Rise, Linköping Science Park, Sankt Kors, LSIF
	Climate neutral Mariestad 2030 2021–2024	50,00,000	Municipality of Mariestad, SWECO, Linköping University, Biosphere Reserve Vänerskärgården, Toyota, We don´t have time, LRF Mariestad, University of Skövde
	Climate neutral Nacka 2030 2021–2024	4,984,375	Nacka municipality, Nacka energy, Nacka water and waste, Sveafastigheter, Skanska, ICA-Maxi, JM, Storstaden Bostad, KTH, Kungsvåningen, Nacka-Värmdö FN-förening
	Skellefteå 2030
	Örebro 2030
	Östersund
5	Load, Store, Link – Large-scale test bed for prosumenter in the energy grid 2018	455.000	KTH, Electricity, Elforsk, Elbil2020	Load, Store, Link – Large-scale Test bed for Prosumenter in the Energy Grid – Viable Cities
6	MERIT – Environmentally friendly and easy travelling in the service 2018–2020	499.250	RISE Viktoria – Project owner/Applicant Västra Göteborgs district administration, RISE AB – Projektpart WSP Sverige AB	https://en.viablecities.se/foi-projekt/merit
7	Mobility as a service included in the property, Trolhättan	Unknown	Unknown	Mobility as a service included in the accommodation – Viable Cities
8	MO-BO-Architecture for sustainable mobility	4,999,334		MoBo arkitektur + hållbart resande (mo-bo.se)
9	MO-BO III – Mobility and accommodation as a combined service 2018–2020	3,963,923	Theory Into Practice (TIP), KTH – Royal Institute of Technology, Sundbyberg Municipality, Fastighets AB Trustee, Trivector, Point AB	Mo-Bo III – Mobility and accommodation as a single service – Viable Cities
10	Public events such as innovation engine 2020–2022	2,522,000		Public events such as innovation engine – Viable Cities
11	Sharing cities Sweden 2017–2020	51,441,000	Lund University, KTH, City of Malmö, City of Umeå, and City of Göteborg.	Sharing Cities Sweden – Viable Cities
	Sharing behaviour 2019–2020	1,800,000	International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund University (Lead Partner) and Chair of Environmental and Energy Economics (CEEE) at the University of Seville	Sharing behaviour – Viable Cities
	Sharing business models 2019-	800.000	Lund University IIIEE (lead partner), University of Manchester and Sustainable Consumption Institute & Manchester Business School	Sharing business models – Viable Cities
	Sharing communities 2019–2020	1,000,000	IVL Swedish Environmental Institute (leading partner), Stockholm Home, ÅWL Arkitekter and IIIEE Lund University
	Sharing platforms 2019–2020	1,000,000	Umeå University, Department of Informatics (Leading Partner), Idrottsservice Västerbotten AB, StrömbäckS Folkhögskola Foundation and The Swedish Insurance Factory in Umeå AB	https://en.viablecities.se/foi-projekt/sharing-platforms
	Sharing towns 2019–2020	2,000,000	Karlstad Municipality and the following partners: WSP, Innovation Park, Centre for Service Research/Karlstad University, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation in Värmland, Consumer Agency, and Centrum Karlstad	Sharing towns – Viable Cities
12	Sustainable urban lifestyles through nudging and civic participation 2018–2021	4,470,000	Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala Municipality, Malmö City, WSP Sverige AB, LINK Arkitektur AB, Urban Minds, Lindroos Arkitekter, Property Owners Association Sofielund, Rosendal Fastigheter	https://en.viablecities.se/foi-projekt/urbana-livsstilar
13	System demonstrators for faster climate change in cities			Systemdemonstrator – Viable Cities
	Roadmap for mobility hubs 2022–2023	281.411	Uppsala kommun	Roadmap for mobility hubs | Vinnova
	Systemdemonstrator Lund 2022–2023	300.000	Lunds kommun	System demonstrator Lund | Vinnova
	Catalytic systems change in Kärra Skogome 2022–2023	300.000	Göteborgs kommun	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/catalytic-systems-change-in-karra-skogome/
	System demonstrator for a climate neutral Umeå based in the new city district Tomtebo strand 2022–2023	300.000	Umeå kommun
	Systemdemonstrator SNABBSAM snabb elektrifiering och omställning till utsläppsfria transporter i samverkan (Sthlm, Järfälla, Nacka) 2022–2023	300.000	Stockholms kommun	https://www.vinnova.se/en/p/snabbsam-fast-electrification-and-transition-to-emission-free-transport-in-collaboration-sthlm-jarfalla-nacka/
	Local mobilisation 2022–2023	285.528	Malmö kommun	Local mobilisation | Vinnova
14	Xplorion – Residential mobility service in car-free accommodation 2019–2021	2,000,000	LKF (Lunds Kommuns Fastighets AB), Future by Lund, Lunds universitet	https://en.viablecities.se/foi-projekt/xplorion