The 12 best ways to remove cars from cities

Question: what do the following statistics have in common?

• The second (growing) source of CO2 emissions in Europe;
• The leading cause of child deaths in the United States e Europe;
• The main cause of noise pollutionstress-inducing, and air pollutionreducing life expectancy in European cities;
• One of the main drivers of inequality between rich and poor in urban areas.

Answer: cars on our streets, especially the cars of those with higher incomes.

Despite a (slow) migration to electric cars, current consumption trends are making car use even more expensive and unequal. A recent analysis showed that the reduction in emissions by electric vehicles was more than offset by the increase in consumption by SUVs, vehicles highly dependent on fossil fuels. The SUVs emit more carbon than Canada or Germanyand contribute more that heavy industry for the increase in these emissions.

While cars are often needed to promote mobility and social inclusion of populations - especially for the disabled -, car-centric cities are especially disadvantageous for marginalized populations. In the UK, women, young and old, racialized communities and disabled people tend to be part of lower income households, of which 40% have no car. Contrast this with higher income households, where virtually 90% own at least one car.

The driving habits of a small group cause great damage in society as a whole, and this is especially relevant in cities. For example, Copenhagen calculatedconsidering the impacts on social well-being (physical and mental health, accidents and traffic) and on the environment (greenhouse gas emissions, air and noise pollution), that each kilometer traveled by bicycle brings social benefits of around €0.64, while a kilometer traveled by car causes a net loss to society of -€0.71. Consequently, every kilometer by which a car is replaced by a bicycle will create a social benefit of €1.35 - according to the same study, the gains from swapping a fossil fuel-powered car for an electric car are mere pennies.

Reducing the role of the car in cities

Half a century ago, the Danish capital was dominated by the car. However, after campaigns led by civic and grassroots movements to change streets and policies in place, such as replacing parking spaces with segregated bike lanes, the contribution of bicycling to all trips has increased of 10% in 1970 for 35% today. In 2015, for the first time, the number of trips made with bicycles exceeded the number of car trips.

Meanwhile, other initiatives to limit car use have been tested around the world; but mayors, urban planners and citizens still don't have a script solidly supported by scientific evidence of how best to reduce car use in cities. Our most recent research, by Paula Kuss, from the Center for Sustainability Studies at the University of Lundoand published in Case Studies on Transport Policytries to contribute to this debate by quantifying the effectiveness of different policies aimed at reducing car use.

Our study ranks the 12 most effective measures that European cities have been testing in recent decades, using data from actual experiences, ranging from positive discrimination measures such as programs to encourage bicycling or walking to work, to restrictive measures such as removing parking spaces. The ranking reflects the effectiveness of cities not only in reducing car use, but also in achieving improvements in quality of life and sustainable mobility for their residents.

In total, we reviewed a total of 800 peer-reviewed reports and case studies across Europe published since 2010, looking for studies that quantify where and how cities have succeeded in reducing car use. According to our literature review, the The most effective policies are the introduction of an urban toll - which reduces car use by 12% to 33% - and the creation of car-free streets and segregated bicycle lanes, which reduce car use in city centers by 20%. The table below ranks and summarizes the 12 most effective measures to reduce car use:

Automobile use reduction strategy classification

Inequality in car use

The car is inherently inefficient and unequal in its consumption of space and resources. On average, cars spend 96% of their lives parked, using space in cities that could have other more beneficial uses, such as housing and public parks. In Berlin, motorists on average use 3.5 times more public space than non-car drivers, which is mainly due to the parking space.

E are usually the people with the highest incomes who use the car the most: in Europe, the 1% richer conducts approximately four times more than the average conductoremissions, resulting in a contribution of 21% to their carbon footprint. For this group of largest polluters, car use is the second largest responsible for their pollutant emissions, only behind aviation (which, on average, generates twice as many emissions).

Giving priority to the car as a means of transportation also favors the expansion of cities into the suburbs. Houses in the suburbs are generally larger, which contributes to a higher level of energy consumption. Households living in suburban areas of North America have consistently larger carbon footprints than urban residents: one study in Toronto shows that the suburban footprint was twice as high.

There is also evidence that road traffic increases with expansion of existing roads - however, this principle, of "induced demand", is often overlooked by traffic planners, who overestimate the benefits and underestimate the costs associated with building road infrastructure.

Electric vehicles are necessary, but they are not a perfect solution. Since cars usually have a long life span, the migration to electric cars is very slow. Some studies anticipate relatively small reductions in emissions over the next decade as a result of the adoption of electric vehicles. And even if an electric car does not cause air pollution through its engine, the wear and tear on the car's brakes and tires continue to deteriorate air quality with toxic dust and micro-plastics. Regardless of how a car is powered, we can really consider efficient vehicle use that passes up to 95% of its life stoppedinstead of moving passengers and goods?

Covid-19: A Missed Opportunity?

Our study evaluates experiences and innovations in urban mobility introduced before the pandemic. In response to Covid-19, mobility habits (at least initially) changed dramatically. However, after a significant reduction in car use in the spring of 2020, car driving and associated pollution increased to near pre-pandemic levels. In Sweden, while public transport use fell by 42% in the first year of the pandemic, car use fell by only 7% in the same period, leading to an increase in car prevalence in relative terms.

While ingrained habits such as car use are difficult to change, disruptive periods are chances to change such behaviors - in part because people are forced to create new habits and routines, where they may discover unexpected advantages. However, for such changes to take hold permanently, changes in the infrastructure of cities are necessary. Unfortunately, although European cities have introduced bicycle paths pop-up and the use of bicycles have increased impressively, between 11% and 48%we are observing a return from the car-centric citywith traffic lanes and parking spaces again replacing dedicated spaces for cyclists and pedestrians.

In general, the opportunity to combine pandemic recovery with climate objectives has been missed. Less than 20% of pandemic-related public spending has contributed to greenhouse gas emission reductions.

A key determinant for the future of the car in cities is the return of driving as a form of mobility between home and work. Mobility policies designed to reduce unnecessary car trips, and opportunities to use remote communication technologies can reduce the emissions associated with these practices in 94% - which would also save time. Who works remotely three or more days a week tend to travel less than other workers. However, long car trips can easily negate this type of savings, so living close to the workplace remains the best alternative.

There are no miracle solutions

The scientific research is consensual: reducing car use must be a priority to improve indicators of health, comply climate targets and create cities with better living conditions. However, several governments in Europe and the United States continue to strongly subsidize the use of the car through a combination of subsidies for fossil productiontax credits for car users, and incentives for commercial vehicles that promote this mode of transportation over others. In general, these measures pay polluters to continue to impose these costs on society.

Mayors have more tools at their disposal than they sometimes realize - from economic measures like fees and subsidies, to behavior change strategies like sharing information about their citizens' mobility. Our study shows that over 75% of the innovations at the urban level that reduce car use have been implemented by municipalities - in particular those that have been most effective, such as city tolls, parking or condition regulations, and the creation of limited traffic zones.

But an important point from our study is that a small number of very specific measures are not effective - there are no miracle solutions. The most successful cities in this area usually combine several policies, including measures that promote light mobility, and more punitive measures that charge or restrict car driving or parking.

These are the 12 best ways to reduce automobile use in a city:

1. Urban Toll

The measure identified in the study as being the most effective involves paying a gate fee when entering the city, with the proceeds transferred to more sustainable modes of transportation. London pioneered this policy, and reduced traffic in the center an impressive 33% through the introduction of this toll in February 2003, by the first Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. The toll has a fixed price (with some exceptions for certain vehicles or social groups) and has been increased over the years from £5/day to £15/day in June 2020. A key point of this measure is that 80% of the revenue is channelled into the public transport network.

Other European cities have followed suit and adopted similar systems after approval in referendums in Milan, Stockholm e Gothenburg - In Swedish cities, the price of entering the city varies depending on the day and time of entry. Despite the effectiveness of city tolls, this measure alone cannot solve the traffic problemThis will continue as long as there are incentives and infrastructure that favor car use.

2. Parking and traffic control

Several European cities, regulations to remove parking spaces and change the road structure - in several cases replacing space previously used as automobile infrastructure for other uses, such as car-free streets, bike lanes and sidewalks. For example, Oslo the replacement of parking spaces with fully pedestrianized streets and bike lanes resulted in a reduction of car use in the center by up to 19%.

3. traffic restricted zones

Rome, historically one of the busiest cities in Europe, has changed its mobility model in favor of public transportation by restricting car use in the city center at certain times of the day to residents only, and by charging an annual fee for use. This measure has reduced traffic in the Italian capital in 20% during the restricted hours, and 10% during the remaining periodswhere all cars are allowed to enter the center. The revenue associated with fines is used to finance the public transportation system.

4. Mobility services for commuting

Of the exclusively positive incentive-focused measures in our study, the most effective was a mobility services campaign for the commuters from the city of Utrecht, the Netherlands. The municipality and private companies collaborated to provide free public transportation for workers, combined with private buses to connect public transportation with workplaces. This program, promoted through marketing and communication strategies, was responsible for a reduction of 37% in the proportion of passengers that used the car to get to the city center.

5. Paid on-site parking

Another effective way to reduce the number of people who use their car to get to work is to introduce a parking sticker. For example, a medical center in the port of Rotterdam reduced the number of employees using their car by 20-25% through a system in which workers paid for parking while offered the option of giving up their parking space in exchange for public transport services. This system was three times more effective than a more comprehensive program in the British city of Nottinghamwhich applied a parking sticker to all businesses with more than 10 parking spaces. The revenues associated with this program were channeled into the city's public transportation system, contributing to the expansion of the surface metro.

6. Planning trips for work

Programs in which guaranteed companies advise and encourage their employees to stop using the car are in use in several cities in Europe. One of the main studies in the area, published in 2010, evaluated 20 cities in the United Kingdom and revealed that, on average, 18% of the workers started using a means of transport other than the car, after the application of a set of measures - including corporate buses, discounts on using public transportation, and improving the cycling infrastructure - and also the reduction of parking spaces. In another program, the British city of Norwich has shown similar results through an extensive plan that does not include discounts on public transport. This type of policy, which simultaneously provides positive incentives for the use of other forms of mobility and penalizes car use, was more effective than a policy strictly focused on incentives in Brighton & Hovein the south of England. The creation of cycling infrastructure, such as bicycle shedsThey just reduced the car's usage by 3%.

7. Planning trips to the university

Like planning programs presented above, University transportation planning programs combine the promotion of transportation alternatives with restrictive parking measures on campus. The most successful case studied in this research was at the University of Bristol, where workers' use of the car was reduced by 27%The city of San Sebastian has implemented a more ambitious program that includes both teachers and students. The city of San Sebastian has implemented a more ambitious program that includes both teachers and students. Although it has achieved a more modest reduction, around 7.2%, the reduction in the absolute number of cars was significant, given the total size of the affected population.

8. Mobility services for the university

The Sicilian city of Catania used a method only focused on mobility incentives for the university population. By providing free public transportation and a bus connection to the campus, the city has managed to reduce the student population using the car by 24%.

9. Car sharing

According to our analysis, perhaps surprisingly, car sharing is a method with mixed results when it comes to reducing car use. This type of system, where participants can easily rent a car for a few hours, has had promising results in Bremen (Germany) e Genova (Italy)where each shared car replaces, on average, 12-15 private cars. This method includes increasing the number of car sharing and rental stations, integrating them into housing areas, public transportation, and cycling infrastructure.

Both programs also involved awareness campaigns. However, further studies point to the risks that car sharing may in fact lead to greater automobile consumption by people who previously did not drive. Therefore, we recommend that more research be done on how to design a car-sharing system that truly reduces car use.

10. Planning trips to school

Two English cities, Brighton & Hove and Norwich, used (and evaluated) school travel planning measures: providing advice, planning trips and also through events, for students and parents used other forms of mobility such as walking, cycling or car sharing. In addition to these campaigns, the cycling infrastructure was improved. Norwich found that it was able to reduce the share of car use for school trips at 10.9%using this approach, while analysis made in Brighton found that the impact of the measure was about half.

11. Custom trip planning

Several cities have experimented with individualized counseling plans for their residents, including Marseille (France), Munich (Germany), Maastricht (Netherlands), San Sebastian (Basque Country, Spain). These programs - by advising residents to plan their trip by walking, biking, or using (sometimes at a discounted rate) public transportation - have resulted in car use reductions of 6-12%. However, since these systems encompass all residents, and not just a minority like programs focused on schools or a few businesses, these measures play an important role in reducing car use in absolute terms. (The city of San Sebastian introduced university and global travel plans simultaneously, which probably had an enhanced effect compared to these policies in isolation.)

12. Application for sustainable mobility

Technology associated with cell phones have been growing in relation to the strategy of reducing car use. For example, the Italian city of Bologna has developed an app for individuals and groups of workers from various companies to track how they get around. Participants compete for points by walking, cycling, or using public transport, with local businesses offering prizes to the teams that get the most points.

There is growing interest in the gamification of sustainable mobility - and at first glance, the data from the Bologna application shows impressive results. Impressively so, 73% users reported less car use. But unlike other studies that measure the number or distance of trips, it is not possible to calculate the actual reduction in car use, or CO2 emissions, and so the effectiveness of the program is ambiguous.

While mobility data from apps can be useful tools for improving trip planning, there is a need to design smart goods and services that actually reduce emissions and promote transportation sustainability, because the existing evidence is hybrid. For example, a study from 2021 shows that after transportation services like Uber and Lyft enter the market, the number of existing cars increases - particularly in cities that were already highly car-dependent - and the use of public transportation drops in wealthier areas.

Cities need to reinvent themselves

Reducing automobile dependency is not just a good idea. It is something necessary to ensure the survival of people and ecosystems in the world, which the recent IPCC report on climate impacts shows how close the world has to get to 1.5°C to limit the most harmful effects of global warming. To avoid irreversible damage and meet the obligations signed in the Paris treaty, industrialized countries like the UK and Sweden must reduce their emissions by 10-12% per year - about 1% per month.

However, until the pandemic began, transport emissions in Europe were still on a growth path. In fact, current policies predict transport emissions in 2040 to be virtually unchanged from the observed 50 years earlier.

To meet the planet's climate and health goals, municipalities need to transition to sustainable mobility modes by first avoiding the need for mobility (like the example of the 15-minute city in Paris); and then, changing mobility needs from car to public transportation where possible; finally, making the remaining car fleet emission-neutral.

This transition has to be fast and fair: mayors and civil society need to work with the people to gain political legitimacy and momentum to make these changes. Without broad public acceptance to reduce the number of cars, the EU's goal to have 100 cities carbon neutral in 2030 is an unlikely hypothesis.

Radically reducing the number of cars requires that cities be better places to live - and it is possible. A 2020 study shows that we can use minus 60% today's energy and guarantee decent living standards for the 10 billion people projected for the planet. But to do so, developed countries need to develop public transportation networks three times larger than those that exist, and each person must limit their trips by 5,000 kilometers (in dense cities) and 15 000 kilometers (in remote areas).

The positive impacts of reducing cars in cities will be felt by everyone who lives and works in them, in the form of more livable public space. Like a journalist who visited the Belgian car-free city of Ghent, said in 2020:

"The air tastes better...people have turned the streets into living rooms and extra gardens."

Cities need to re-imagine themselves and turn the necessary into the possible. At the heart of the matter, guided by scientific evidence that shows what works, cities need to break free of the car.

Article written by Kimberly Nicholasassociate professor of sustainability at Lund Universityin Sweden.

This article was originally published in The Conversation platform and republished in Lisboa Para Pessoas duly translated, with no changes to the original content, which can be found here. This text is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0.