Credit: Metrominuto. Pontevedra (Spain)

Introduction

Worldwide there is a growing awareness about the positive effects of car-free urban settings on mitigating climate change outcomes through the reduction of traffic and related air pollution (Nieuwenhuijsen, 2016). In addition, car-free settings are known to improve public health outcomes by enhancing opportunities for a more active life, mobility, greater possibility for social inclusion, and supporting more liveable and functional neighbourhood development (Vogel, 2015).

Nevertheless, the dominant mode of transport in contemporary planning is still the car and this condition excludes several groups in society that are not able to or do not want to own a car. The marginalisation of active modes of transport, such as walking and cycling, would need to be challenged, implying a re-discussion and further development towards more interconnected infrastructures (Koglin and Rye, 2014).

Definition of Low car development and car free development

Low car development is the mixed-use or residential development with these two concepts: Provide limited parking spaces and designed to decrease car use by inhabitants. (Meila, 2010).

In the research by Melia (2010), the definition of car-free development can be described below:

• Provide a trafficfree immediate environment;
• Offer no parking or limited parking separated from the residents;
• Design to enable residents to live without owning a car.

Doing by learning approach

An interesting approach to begin with are car-free interventions that gradually introduce and test measures to reduce car use. Thus, they can be defined as car-free street experiments putting forward a learning by doing approach (Bertolini, 2020). These types of interventions are often initiated as temporary changes in the public urban arena, which implies that they are easier to justify from a policy maker’s perspective since they do not disrupt the overall motorised traffic planning of the city. Yet, they have the potential to form the basis for a longer-term discussion of systemic changes needed in the urban mobility systems (Caprotti and Cowley, 2017).

Walking is more than walking

An important condition that can support the transition towards car-free cities seems to be the recognition that mobility is an integral part of our society rather than just understanding it as a movement from point A to B. Thus, mobility includes the underlying meaning and the embodiment of that movement as a particular practice as experienced by people, which is linked to cultural aspects as well as the urban form (Vogel, 2015).

The development of car-free settings implies several changes in mobility patterns, such as shifts in modes of transport. One of those modes of transportation that gradually becomes more central in urban planning contexts is walking. Urban walking has been defined as a complex multifaceted phenomenon resulting by the interplay between physical and social characteristics of the urban setting (external environmental factors), as well as, by psychological and personal qualities of the individual (internal psychological factors) (Kärrholm et al., 2014).

These latter, psychological factors (e.g emotional relations with place) are often neglected aspects of car-free settings’ research since, traditionally, the focus has been on mobility patterns, environmental pollution and other types of social parameters (e.g. attitudes and behaviours). Nevertheless, several studies have pointed out how emotional relations with place guide human responses and in turn affect attitudes, behaviours, and actual use of place (Lindelöw, 2016).

Underlying individual factors can be defined as psychosocial processes, which account for the emotional relationship between people and their environment, and are able to affect the individual’s appraisal towards, for example, acceptance and use of car-free streets. Emotional and social-relational factors intercede between people and their residential neighbourhood environment, shaping the experience of walking as well as the actual intention of being a part of the neighbourhood life. (Ferreira et al., 2016).

 Furthermore, the feelings of attachment and identification with one’s residential neighbourhood environment affect the level of satisfaction with the setting itself, and often, greater levels of attachment mirror greater participation and engagement in the neighbourhood setting (Bonaiuto et al., 2015).

Rationales after car-free city initiatives

Ortegon-Sanchez et al. in 2017 analyzed 213 car-free city initiatives and found five main rationales behind car-free city initiatives:

• making car costlier or less convenient (23%),
• making other transport modes more attractive and convenient (47%), this includes all the initiatives related to promoting or improving sustainable transport modes individually, or as parts of an integrated system,
• revive social functions of streets (11.3%),
• comprehensive sustainable housing developments and residential areas improvements (12.3%), developed in brownfield areas designed as dense, walkable neighborhoods, with convenient access to public transport and with a scale and qualities that cater for the needs of people walking, lingering and cycling and designed to be socially and environmentally sustainable,
• reduce air pollution (5.2%).

The results of the gathered car-free initiatives support the premise that a diversity of type of initiatives are needed to overcome car-dependency.

Case study. Pontevedra

Pontevedra is Galicia, north of Spain. At the end of 1990, the traffic of Pontevedra was problematic. More than 27,000 cars were passing through the heart of the old town. Air pollution, traffic congestion, traffic safety had become the problems to be faced by people and the city government. After that, the government began a series of projects relevant to urban transport and street reconstruction in Pontevedra old town (Ortegon-Sanchez et al., 2017).

Actions implemented and outcomes reached

In Pontevedra, after its pedestrianization, there are free parking lots at the entrance to the city, public transport is accessible, people walk a lot, children inhabit public space and there are no traffic fatalities.

In the car-free zone located in the city centre, the parking facilities on the street are inhibited, and the transit is limited in the central city area. The car-free zone is surrounded by a traffic calming zone where the trucks and conventional vehicles can be allowed to use in the peak time of every day.

Under this background, the travel mode share in Pontevedra shows a high level of Non-motorized (76%), Public transit travel mode share (3%), Vehicle out-driving mode share (21%) (Ortegon-Sanchez et al., 2017).

Land Use

The land use planning in car-free district is mix use. The mix of different functions in this area provides residents with shopping, education, medical and leisure for the people, which means the daily needs can be done by bicycle and walking. Most of apartments are more than 4 floors. And some shops, café, Pharmacies are located on ground floor of buildings. In this area, the gaps between buildings are narrowed. The buildings and link by pedestrians and public spaces closely. Also, in this area, a quantity of business are located at the central and provide a lot of job opportunities (Ortegon-Sanchez et al., 2017).

Travel distance

The cost of travel affects the travel behaviour, such as the cost of time and money influencing the mode share, transfer number and average length of trip-chain (Boarnet and Crane, 2001).

In Pontevedra, following the idea of promoting the car-free life style, the service radius of different facilities presents with the most suitable walking distance-400 meters (Newman et al., 2003).

 In the car-free area of Pontevedra, the locations of different facilities are moveable to people. The shops are mostly located in the central of car-free and car-restriction area. The schools are more closely to Southern boundary and the motorway. Bus stops are out of the car-free area. The locations of parking are surrounding the boundary of the car-free zone, and following the policies form the city council. Hospitals are all located in the inner of both car-free and car-restriction areas. One of the kernel principles of a "complete" district is to encourage small businesses that could serve people's requirements, especially for daily needs (Minh, 2016).

Travel fares

The level of fare of public transit helps the promoting of public transit and reliefs the negative effects by car use. Also, the cost of parking and taxi fares make influence travel behaviour (Washbrook, Haider and Jaccard, 2006). The cost of parking and public transit in Pontevedra, and mostly parking facilities in the outskirts of the city are free to people, and it encourages the people to join the life in the old town centre. Meanwhile, the fares of the bus and taxi still in a reasonable level comparing the annual income of residents.

Other Cases study

These cases are described in Melia (2010):

GWL Terrein in Amsterdam (Netherlands) has a limited access model which is a sample of a complete prohibition of car ownership. The restriction policies focus on general drivers. The removal of vans and emergency vehicles are not limited.

Vauban, Freiburg (Germany). The Vauban model mainly provides walking space and streets for pick up and delivery but not to park. The residents of the car-free area have an annual contract with the city council. The regulation prescribes that the car owner must pay for the multi-storey spaces over €17,500 a year in 2006 (Scheurer, 2001).

Groningen, (Netherlands) has a pedestrianized centre with a residential population closed to motor traffic entirely. At a specific time of day, some of the streets are open to general transport. The non-residents parking facilities are provided at the edge of the centre.

References

Bertolini, L., 2020. From “streets for traffic” to “streets for people”: can street experiments transform urban mobility? Transp. Rev. 40 (6), 734–753.

Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., Ariccio, S., Ganucci Cancellieri, U., Rahimi, L., 2015. Perceived Residential Environment Quality Indicators (PREQIs) relevance for UNHABITAT city prosperity index (CPI). Habitat Int. 45, 53–63.

Boarnet, M. and Crane, R. (2001). Travel by design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Caprotti, F., Cowley, R., 2017. Interrogating urban experiments. Urban Geogr. 38 (9), 1441–1450.

Ferreira, I.M., Johansson, M., Sternudd, C., Fornara, F., 2016. Transport walking in urban neighbourhoods—Impact of perceived neighbourhood qualities and emotional relationship. Landscape Urban Plann. 150, 60–69.

Kärrholm, M., Johansson, M., Lindelöw, D., Ferreira, I.A., 2014. Interseriality and different sorts of walking: suggestions for a relational approach to urban walking. Mobilities 1–16.

Koglin, T., Rye, T., 2014. The marginalisation of bicycling in Modernist urban transport planning. J. Transp. Health 1 (4), 214–222.

Melia, S. (2010). Carfree, low car what's the difference?. University of the West of England.

Minh, N. (2016). Application of “Car Free City” and “City of Short Walks” to Living Quarters in Hanoi Towards Sustainable Mobility and Logistics. Procedia Engineering, 142, pp.284-291.

Nieuwenhuijsen, M., 2016. Urban and transport planning, environmental exposures and health new concepts, methods and tools to improve health in cities.

Newman, A., Haggerty, C., Kritchevsky, S., Nevitt, M. and Simonsick, E. (2003). Walking Performance and Cardiovascular Response: Associations With Age and Morbidity The Health, Aging and Body Composition Study.

The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 58(8), pp.M715-M720.

Ortegon-Sanchez, A., Popan, C., & Tyler, N. (2017, January). Car-free initiatives from around the world: concepts for moving to future sustainable mobility. In TRB 96th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Washington, DC.

Scheurer, J. (2001). Urban ecology, innovations in housing policy and the future of cities: Towards sustainability in neighbourhood. PhD. Murdoch University Institute of Sustainable Transport, Perth.

Vogel, N., 2015. Transition in the Making: A Critical Dispute on Urban Transition Processes towards Sustainable Mobility. Doctoral Dissertation, Aalborg University, Department of Development and Planning; Urban Planning and Mobilities Research Group (UPM) – Aalborg University.

Washbrook, K., Haider, W. and Jaccard, M. (2006). Estimating commuter mode choice: A discrete choice analysis of the impact of road pricing and parking charges. Transportation, 33(6), pp.621-639.