“A whole debate extending far away from just 'Active Travel'?”
Well no and yes
Shouldn’t need to be a debate. As you have demonstrated, things could/should be different - and could have been for a long time.
Many reasons -
‘Personal freedom’ - in this case (largely) for those who want to use/can afford cars (and don’t want restrictions)
Govs who have been seduced/cowed by industry (car and road building) lobbying over decades
‘Fear of voters’ (perhaps increasing) who believe ‘freedom’ arguments and don’t want higher taxes/costs (and resisting Road Pricing)
But yes, TotalMobility v ‘active travel’ is an interesting angle
Of course there are organisations like Transform Scotland which combine PT and AT in their advocacy work
AT, in campaigning terms, essentially means cycling and walking - or to some cycling or walking!
Cycle campaigning basically started as pressure for people cycling (or wanting to) on roads. This had successes (and pushback/setbacks) over the years. There were those ‘cyclists’ (probably still are) who saw the problem as lack of skill/experience and ‘need for training’ (perhaps compulsory). The phrase “man up” was used sometimes…
Sustrans significantly pioneered ‘off road’ routes. To some this may seem like a distraction/cop out/diversion of funds away from sorting out roads, but the reality has been more people using bikes, more experience, more willingness to cycle on roads - and helping to raise ‘visibility’ of ‘cycling’
In recent years there have been those arguing that ‘active travel’ (only/mostly) means ‘money for cycling’ to the extent that a small minority (often quite vocal) seem to believe that cyclists/bikes are THE problem.
The arrival of electric bikes - particularly illegal ones has complicated reality/perception/controversy. Electric motorbike use has perhaps joined the ‘illegal boats’ as something to despise/fear. (Not suggesting that one or both aren’t problems)
The question now is whether TotalMobility is a ‘tech fix’ or (partly) new opportunity for joined-up-thinking