There are many reasons to reduce car use in cities, and yet traffic reduction policies seem to remain controversial and unpopular. Systems thinking and understanding how to communicate the multiple and complex set of impacts will help push forward urban transformations that reduce car dependency.
There are many reasons to reduce car use in cities, and yet traffic reduction policies seem to remain controversial and unpopular. Systems thinking and understanding how to communicate the multiple and complex set of impacts will help push forward urban transformations that reduce car dependency.
Here’s a selection of arguments in favour of car reduction. Cities are responsible for 70% of carbon emissions, and contributions from the transport sector remain stubbornly high, in large part because of growing demands in car travel and in the size of cars. Traffic is also the main contributor to air pollution in most cities, and thus in part responsible for the millions of deaths every year from poor air quality. Cars kill people directly too: traffic is even the main cause of mortality for young people in most regions of the world. Car dependency also means we are missing out on opportunities to enhance our health and quality of life. Most prominently, travelling by bike or on foot allows people to seamlessly integrate recommended levels of physical activity into their daily lives. This helps prevent some of the most debilitating and challenging health problems such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia. Think also of all the space in cities that could be put to better uses without the omnipresence of cars in our public spaces. Replacing cars with greenspace will enhance people’s physical and mental health while mitigating harms of climate change such as heat and flooding. Space could be created for urban agriculture, known to improve diet, physical activity and social interaction. Think also of how quiet our streets could be with less traffic, and of the chance encounters one experiences when walking about. Compared to driving, walking and cycling are also known to reduce stress – often thought of as the epitome of urban life. Car dependency is also inequitable because of disproportionate harms on deprived populations of air pollution and community severance caused by car-oriented transport infrastructure. The list goes on.
These are all solid evidence-based arguments in favour of car reductions. Why are they not sufficient to promote change? Many actors need to be mobilized for urban transformations, including civil servants from different government departments, politicians, and citizens.
Car reduction strategies make sense from a systems perspective, and transformations require collaborations across multiple sectors. Despite a recent push in some countries to adopt systems perspectives for policy making, the reality is that siloed approaches prevail. Government departments develop policies to tackle each problem area in their purview with little consideration of spillover effects. From single-focused perspectives, car reduction strategies may not seem the most appealing. They are perceived to be difficult to implement, and many politicians, who also must contend with various powerful competing interests, will often shy away from the potential controversy. Public support is essential to persuade policy makers to embrace needed transformations, but little is known about public acceptance. Misinformation may play a role in shaping perceptions, and perceived widespread opposition may stem from a noisy few rather than from a silent majority.
The good news is the multiple arguments in favour of car reduction policies create many potential hooks to engage society with. Whether you are, for example, motivated by personal health and wellbeing, altruistically concerned about the climate emergency, morally outraged about inequities, there are many benefits that can be explained. This is important as we know engagement works best when targeted to individuals’ preferences and values. Also on the bright side is that engagement works best with positive messaging, and there is much to look forward to with car-less neighbourhoods and streets. The downside is communicating on these multiple and complex impacts is challenging. We know little about how to effectively create such positive visions and communicate on the multiple benefits of car reduction strategies to successfully engage society.
How many arguments will it take before we reduce cars in cities? The sooner we work this out, the sooner we can start reaping the benefits of people-centred liveable and healthy cities.
Audrey de Nazelle is a Senior Lecturer at the Centre of Environmental Policy, Imperial College in London
