Sustainable Urban Mobility Policy in Georgia

Urban mobility policy in Georgia is primarily implemented through temporary, short-term, and fragmented interventions. Although certain characteristics of a just transition are evident in this process, it is too early to assert that it is being developed either sustainably or equitably. 

The current institutional framework hinders the implementation of mobility policies in a proactive, comprehensive, and integrated manner, both at the local and national levels. 

The central government approaches mobility through the lens of economic rationalism. The primary focus in this sector lies in transport and logistics, with an emphasis on maximizing the country’s transit potential, particularly in the freight sector. 

In passenger transport, the implementation of sustainable urban mobility policies is prevented by a vague and often contradictory legislative framework, inadequate institutional arrangements, and a lack of equitable cooperation between different levels of government. 

At present, there is neither institutional readiness nor willingness at the national level for the long-term, coordinated planning and implementation of sustainable urban mobility. 

The integration of sustainable mobility into state climate policy or spatial planning strategies remains superficial, addressing only selected principles. From the standpoint of environmental and spatial justice, sustainable urban mobility is absent from discussions at these levels of public policymaking. 

By law, the development of urban mobility policy is in the hands of municipalities. However, in practice, their role in this area is limited. This limitation stems from various factors, including inadequate institutional readiness of self-governments, tight budgets, and limited access to central budgetary funds or international financial and knowledge resources. These constraints further reduce autonomy at the local level. 

In most cases, municipalities act as passive beneficiaries of state or international resources. Such support is largely unsystematic and often depends on the goodwill or charity of the central government. In other cases, projects are implemented only when the strategic interests of the donor or state align, at least partially, with local needs. 

With the exception of a few large cities, self-governing entities mainly address mobility needs through minimal interventions or by outsourcing their functions to private operators. For instance, Poti has been relatively successful in utilizing international or state funding to plan and gradually improve its mobility system. On the other hand, Tkibuli, with minor exceptions, relies heavily on the private sector and faces significant challenges due to even scarcer resources. 

Although the municipal mobility systems of Poti and Tkibuli exhibit distinct challenges and development trajectories, they both face a shared obstacle: the lack of a reserve of transport vehicles and financial stability. These issues hinder the establishment of a comprehensive mobility system and prevent the fulfillment of local population needs. 

The accessibility and comfort of public transportation play a vital role in the daily lives of local residents. While the expansion of the bus fleet in Poti has improved convenience and comfort, challenges persist due to an insufficient number of buses and long intervals between services. 

In Tkibuli, the absence of public transportation, inconvenient schedules, and high fares severely restrict the mobility of residents, particularly those living in villages within the municipality. These challenges significantly limit their ability to participate in daily social and economic activities. 

Respondents in both municipalities emphasize the need to reduce transport intervals, add more routes, and implement a reserve system to enhance the accessibility of public transport. 

The blog summarises main findings of the research on Sustainable Urban Mobility Policy in Georgia. Full research is available in Georgian here.