Carfree Development

1
Carfree Development The Paradox of
Intensification
Steve Melia
Funded by
2
Intensification Transport Demand

• Debate urban form travel
• Intensification probably reduces car travel, but
  not proportionally
• Empirical studies evidence mixed, problems
  traffic-related

Katie Williams
Camden
3
The Paradox of Intensification
Intensification may contribute to global
sustainability but worsen quality of life in the
localities where it occurs unless accompanied
by more radical measures
4
Carfree Development

• Growing number of examples across Europe
• Defining characteristics
• Designed around the sustainable modes
• Traffic-free immediate environment
• Parking limited and separated

Traffic jam, Freiburg-Vauban
Berlin Car Club
5
Carfree Development in the UK

• Examples all small so far
• Larger carfree neighbourhoods could they ever
  work in this country?

Slateford Green,Edinburgh
6
Objectives of this Study To explore

• Potential demand amongst homebuyers/tenants for
  carfree living
• Policy implications

7
June Sept 2006 3850 km (2400 miles)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Vauban
10
(No Transcript)
11

• Vehicles walking pace pick up/deliver
• No parking (some infractions)
• Absolute priority for children playing

12
(No Transcript)
13
Methodology Theoretical Framework

• See the paper for more on these
• Challenge researching the world (or the UK) as
  it might be
• Three stage process
• 3 quantitative surveys,
• qualitative (telephone) interviews
• policy interviews

14
Online survey
Mainly cycling environmental groups
15
Online survey
932 Responses
16
Paper-Based Surveys

• Areas of London with low car ownership
• Pilot Bloomsbury Kings Cross
• Devt. with limited parking travel plan
• Poole Quarter

17
Paper-Based Surveys
Response Rates 199 (9) 57 (25) (so far)
18
Target Groups(based on European experience)

• People who live without a car by choice(Carfree
  Choosers)
• People who say they would like to give up their
  car under certain circumstances(and have
  actually done this in the past) (Carfree
  Possibles)
• People willing to accept constraints on their car
  ownership/use (Car Limiters)

19
Distribution of Target Groups
20
Carfree Choosers(from online and Camden surveys)

• Tend to be younger, single
• Higher income than other non-car owners
• Rarely drive
• Cycle often
• Use all forms of public transport more
• Tend to live in urban areas
• Exhibit urban preferences towards flats, town
  houses, accessible locations

(?2 tests, compared to rest of sample)
21
Carfree Possibles(from Online survey)

• Tend to be older, higher income, more children
• Drive less than average (but more than carfree
  choosers)
• Cycle often
• Use trains more, buses irregularly
• Less urban than carfree choosers but more so
  than the other group

(?2 tests, compared to rest of sample)
22
Poole Survey

• Has the travel plan changed behaviour?
• 42 reduced car driving after moving there (car
  limiters)
• 29 reduced car ownership
• Cycling, walking, bususe all significantly
  increased
• But people believe travel plan not working

23
Attitudes to Carfree Areas

• If a European style carfree neighbourhood were
  built in the UK would you
• be keen to move there, even if it meant moving
  some distance?
• Consider movingthere if it weresomewhereconveni
  ent?

24
(No Transcript)
25
Tentative Conclusions

• Hypothetical questions and actual behaviour
• Limitations of research can never prove
• Evidence of potential demand
• Urban preferences helpful
• Most could afford to buy or privately rent
• Importance of accessibility, public transport

26
Stage 2 Qualitative Interviews

• Explore attitudes towards European model
• Explore questions of causality

27
Final Stage
Implications for UK Transport Planning
PolicyRound Table on Ecotownswww.carfree.org
.uk
28

• Further InformationAvailable on
• www.stevemelia.co.uk
• (Research Papers)