Why cities need to take road space from cars - and how this could be done

ABSTRACT

Cities need to become more liveable. Urban transport systems have great importance in achieving this goal. Currently, cities are dominated by individual motorized transport with associated problems of air pollution, congestion, noise and traffic injuries. This paper argues that the redistribution of space is key in achieving modal split change and the greening of urban environments. It holds that taking road space from cars is justified from social, health, environmental and economic viewpoints. Yet, any change in urban transport cultures has to consider the automobile, which has instrumental as well as symbolic and affective functions. City planners are advised never to argue against the car, and to frame change in ways that reduces resistance by drivers and automotive lobbies.

A few years ago, Delbosc and Currie (2013) observed that levels of driving licensure were falling in many industrialized countries, raising the prospect of a decline in car attachment among young adults. Indeed, a turn from automobile dependence in cities seemed in reach (Kenworthy and Laube 1996), prompting authors to announce ‘peak car’ (Newman and Kenworthy 2011). Perhaps this notion was premature, however, as there is much evidence that car numbers continue to grow. The estimate is that there are now more than 1 billion passenger cars in the world (OICA 2020), many of them employed in cities. For example, Yang et al. (2017) find a rapid increase in private car numbers in cities in China, with the fastest growth in the largest cities. Vehicles have also gained in size and weight, as sports utility vehicles (SUV) are becoming increasingly more common. The International Energy Agency (IEA 2019) observes that SUVs now represent close to 40% of all cars in the world, pointing out that SUV preferences undermine climate mitigation goals. Motorized individual transport is also closely associated with other traffic-related problems, such as (severe) injuries and fatalities, air pollution, congestion, noise, and urban heat effects, all questioning efforts to make cities more liveable. Developments seem to point at two major issues for urban transport planners. The first is that the car competes for space with other transport modes. The second is that transport system change within cities is often hampered by commuters using private cars to move in urban areas. Urban planners and politicians throughout the world are confronted with the challenge of disentangling transport needs and calls for more liveable cities.

Embattled urban transport infrastructures

In spite of growing pressure on urban space, many cities continue to accommodate car growth, building additional roads and parking capacity on the basis of predict and provide principles (Hutton 2013). Progressive cities have realized that there is a need to reduce car numbers, and devised strategies to make car ownership costlier, or alternative transport modes more attractive. For example, in Dutch cities, annual residential parking costs of €1,000 significantly increase the cost of car ownership (Ostermeijer, Koster, and van Ommeren 2019). Congestion charges have been introduced in cities such as London or Stockholm (Börjesson et al. 2012; Prud’Homme and Bocarejo 2005). Car use is already restricted in many urban environments in Europe, and cities all over the world have announced plans to reduce car numbers (Nieuwenhuijsen and Khreis 2016). More far-reaching urban planning includes Barcelona’s car-free superblocks (Rueda 2019). Elsewhere, public transport systems are transformed into mobility as a service (Hirschhorn et al. 2019). While these are promising examples of strategies to pro-actively reduce car-reliance, more systematic approaches to reduce vehicle numbers are rare. A key reason may be that restrictions imposed on cars are regularly met with fierce resistance, even when associated with visions of more desirable urban transport futures, or measurable proof of cities becoming more liveable. One question in particular is raised repeatedly by automotive groups and drivers: is it fair to sanction private cars?

‘Fairness’ would seem to be an issue related to space distribution (Nello-Deakin 2019). Yet, in virtually all cities, transport infrastructure is to a considerable extent devoted to the car. This is problematic because the private car is the most space-intense transport mode. As Nello-Deakin (2019) illustrates, a parked car requires at least three times more space than public transport, and ten times more than the bicycle. When a car is driven at 50 km/h, it requires 70 times more space than a cyclist or pedestrian, highlighting the importance of discussing space as a function of speed.

Apart from its space requirements, the car also contributes to more air pollution, injuries and noise than other transport modes. This argument can be made in economic terms, with estimates for the European Union that a car causes an average social cost of €0.11 per rider per km that is not covered by the taxes, duties or fees paid by its owner (Gössling et al. 2019). For active transportation, the opposite case can be made, as cycling and walking reduce the economic burden of health insurance or sick leave days. This social benefit is €0.18 per km cycled, and €0.37 per km walked (ibid.). Growing evidence also suggests that both active transport and green spaces are associated with better mental health (Chekroud et al. 2018; Dadvand et al. 2016). More liveable and sustainable cities would thus have higher shares of active transport, lower average speeds, and more green areas.

The psychology of the car

In light of these finding, allocating more space to non-car transportation should be an obvious goal for urban planners. Nello-Deakin (2019, 712) comes to the same conclusion in principle, suggesting that the redistribution of road space should follow ‘considerations as to what type of cities we want to live in’. However, he goes on to argue that the ‘carving up’ roads is not necessarily the best option forward; leaving open the question regarding the alternatives. Clearly, the current allocation of urban road space is unfair and inefficient from social, health, environmental, and economic viewpoints. It may even be argued that to ignore the negative externalities of the automotive system is to accept that urban transport systems will become increasingly less liveable – and costlier in economic terms. The question, in other words, is not whether urban transport systems need to change (and whether this is fair), it is how to change these in ways that are transformative, yet not socially disruptive. Specifically, this means that interventions need to be designed in ways that do not result in significant resistance. As automotive lobbies watch closely over the concessions made to other transport modes, redistributing road space is difficult: Infringing on parking opportunities or allocating transport infrastructure to modes other than the car is likely to result in backlash (Gössling and Cohen 2014).

To change automotive systems consequently requires an understanding of the functions of the car, which are only partially instrumental, in the sense that a car is needed to transport a person from one location to another. All too often, traffic planners overlook the symbolic and affective dimensions of car use (Steg 2005). The car has important symbolic value in communicating social status. It has affective functions in dealing with fears, anxieties and phobias; in expressing power, dominance, control, anger and contempt; or in taking revenge, rebelling or escaping. The automobile is a means of socializing with family and friends, or finding community in car cultures. Cars constitute highly personalized spaces, and they have functions related to feeling protected and safe. Bauman (2007) argued that SUV number growth in the USA reflected fears of an outside environment perceived as dangerous. Indeed, it has been observed that car advertising goes to great lengths to portray the world as a dangerous place, in which little trust can be placed in government (Gössling 2017). Large, powerful cars offering superior viewing positions address such worries. Not surprisingly then, interventions against the car represent personal threats because they interfere with psychological needs, such as to feel safe and secure.

Yet, transport behaviour is to a significant degree based on habit (Gärling and Axhausen 2003), and interventions to restrict automobility are often successful. As an example, the Stockholm congestion charge significantly reduced car numbers. Subsequent research sought to identify the changes in transport behaviour that had resulted out of the charge, finding that travellers claimed to not have changed behaviour (Eliasson 2014). This suggests that a significant share of car traffic is superfluous or habit-based, specifically in cities with efficient public transport systems. Results also show that public opinion can sway. In Stockholm, support of congestion charges increased significantly after their introduction (Schuitema, Steg, and Forward 2010). These findings aside, it is clear that the transformation of the automotive system will face significant resistance. The implementation of new transport cultures will require social norm change (views regarding the desirability of the car), and the dissolving of driver-vehicle bonds on the level of the individual. This is difficult to achieve because transport system change undermines instrumental, symbolic, and affective car functions, and city planners and politicians are well advised to strategically consider how urban transport transformations can be implemented.

Changing transport cultures

Several insights emerge from the above discussion. First of all, where no transport alternatives exist, changing transport cultures is impossible. Interventions that make it more difficult to carry out specific trips will result in negative, emotionally charged responses. It is thus paramount for city planners to provide alternatives to the car that are comparable in terms of cost and comfort. Approaches will have to be very different in North America, Europe, or other parts of the world, also because options vary. Ride hailing or sharing systems, for example, are much more advanced in North America, while European cities are denser, and more suitable for a transition to active transport. Second, perceptions of ‘cost and comfort’ can be influenced by communication strategies. Evidence suggests that city planners often ignore the importance of communication, even though this is possibly the most central element of transport system change.

Importantly, attempts to rationally explain car restrictions will rarely be successful. The first rule of any communication strategy is thus to never argue against the car, directly or indirectly. As an example, Copenhagen’s successful transformation into a cycle city was based on a positive communication strategy that never even mentioned motorized vehicles or environmental challenges such as climate change (Gössling 2013). Instead, it focused on bicycle benefits, such as greater average speeds and better health. It framed ‘the Copenhagener’, an aspirational identity, as someone who is riding a bike. Very significant investments in bicycle infrastructure (€40 per person per year) were justified on the basis of cost-benefit analyses showing that each km driven represents a cost, while each km cycled is a benefit to society. Copenhagen illustrates the importance of positive communication strategies focused on benefits, with the more general goal of transport culture identity change.

These insights can be applied to wider city contexts. For example, given that congestion is a tangible problem in most cities, and one that is mostly relevant for drivers, communication strategies can have a starting point in the fact that space is limited in cities. On this basis, it is easy to argue that active transportation is beneficial for car drivers, because anyone cycling, walking or using public transport reduces pressure on space. Drivers will accept that in order to increase the interest in active transport, i.e. to make others refrain from using the car, it is necessary to provide safe and healthy traffic conditions (Fishman 2016). This is rarely the case in cities, where cyclists are often forced to share the road with motorized traffic moving at higher speeds, and where active transport users are exposed to air pollution and noise. The reverse pledge can be made to cyclists: active transport can be made more attractive by highlighting that the bicycle is faster than the car. To cycle can also be associated with a significant gain in travel time, because traffic jams can be bypassed and there is no time loss involved in parking.

Communication strategies can rely on a wide range of other elements to establish the importance of transport system change. The reclassification of curbside parking for car sharing – i.e. the removing of parking opportunities – can be based on the argument that one shared car makes ten owned cars redundant (hence creating space), while also entailing a lower cost of car use. Bicyclists can be presented as healthier persons, an appeal to personal aspirations of being healthy. To adjust speeds downwards would seem more difficult, but even here, it is possible to argue out of the driver’s perspective: under congested road conditions, speeds around 30–40 km/h maximize the flow of cars (Hutton 2013).

Both rational and emotional arguments can be used to make non-car transportation more attractive and to justify interventions that might otherwise be perceived as directed ‘against’ the car. At the same time, it is important to also make driving less comfortable, as transport systems are always in equilibrium (Mogridge et al. 1987). In other words, traffic participants will compare their options, and it is thus important to restrict vehicle use indirectly. For example, cities can follow up closely on laws regarding parking restrictions or speed limits, and fine offenders.

With the emergence of e-scooters in cities, there is also an entirely new argument for city planners to redistribute space (Gössling 2020). Even if it is as yet unclear which trips e-scooters replace – ideally those otherwise made by motorized transport -, they require space. This represents an opportunity for city planners to devote more space to alternative transportation. In European cities, where streets are narrow and congested, it is technically easy and inexpensive to transform entire roads into micromobility streets. This will vastly increase safety perceptions, and make it much more attractive to walk, cycle or use electric transport modes such as e-scooters. Car drivers will also welcome such a separation of traffic, which could be a starting point for the remodelling of cities on active transport, with a considerably lower demand for road space, and the overall goal to create networks of micromobility streets that cannot be used by vehicles.

As this discussion highlights, the transformation of urban transport systems could rest on three elements: viable alternative transport offers for rural/suburban commuters and day visitors to reach city centres; investments in infrastructure encouraging active transport within the city, possibly on the basis of a network of micromobility streets devoted exclusively to cyclists, pedestrians and e-scooters; and communication strategies framing urban transport system change in ways that address driver concerns. System change appears feasible because of exogenous and endogenous pressure, and niche innovations such as e-scooters and e-bikes facilitating change (Geels et al. 2017). Urban transport change is at hand.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.