CARFREE,
LOW-CAR – WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
Dr Steve
Melia, Senior Lecturer in Transport & Planning
University of
the West of England
Abstract
This paper aims to propose a definition and typology of carfree
development and to assess the benefits and problems associated with it. It aims to contrast these with the concept
and practice of ‘low car’ development.
Through a review of the literature and study visits to European carfree
areas, 3 types of carfree development were identified: the Vauban model,
Limited Access model and pedestrianised city centres with substantial
residential populations. Differences in
the previous definitions of carfree development reflect two different aspects
of the concept: exclusion of vehicles from the residential area, and places
where people live without owning cars.
The definition proposed here reflects both of these, although neither
was absolutely implemented in the examples visited. Although intermediate cases are possible, in
practice clear differences are apparent between the carfree and ‘low car’
developments reviewed in the literature and studied in one case, in the UK.
The study visits supported the claims in the literature that carfree
developments help to reduce problems created by traffic in urban areas. They facilitate active travel and independent
play amongst children. Their main
problems relate to the management of parking and vehicular access. Low car developments by contrast can offer
similar benefits to policymakers, but fewer benefits to residents.
Carfree development is a relatively recent response to long-standing
concerns about the effects of motor vehicles on the urban environment. Although
the relationship between cause and effect remain contested, and no consensus
exists on the appropriate policy responses, the proposition that increasing car
ownership and use creates particular problems in urban areas has been largely
accepted.
Amongst the many proposals advanced to address these problems some have
advocated carfree development (Reutter, 1996, Crawford, 2000), several examples of which have been built across
Europe in recent years, although it has occupied a relatively marginal place in
this debate so far.
This article begins by reviewing the different types of carfree
development found in the literature and visited during the course of this
study. From this, three types of carfree
development are proposed, leading to a definition in Section 4. Section 5 briefly reviews some
examples of ‘low car’ development leading to a proposed definition. Section 6 considers the main
benefits claimed for carfree developments and the evidence for these, along
with some problems. Section 7 reviews evidence on
the benefits and problems of low car development.
All of the developments described as ‘carfree’ involve some degree of
compromise with pressures for vehicular access and parking. Thus the distinction between ‘carfree’ and
‘low car’ involves a judgement.
Nevertheless, there are important differences between the two concepts
relating to the immediate environment and benefits to residents.
The article concludes with a discussion of implications for transport
policy in urban areas, and gaps in the knowledge base, where more research is
needed.
There are many areas of the world where people have
always lived without cars, because no road access is possible, or none has been
provided. The term carfree development implies a physical change:
either new building or changes to an existing built area. There have been some recent attempts to
define carfree development (see,
for example: Morris et al, 2009), following practice around Europe. These attempts at definition have generated
some problems. Morris et al include ‘low
car’ as a form of carfree development, which would appear to be a contradiction
in terms, although the distinction between the two is far from clear.
In UK planning policies (e.g. DETR, 2001) the term ‘car free’[1] usually
refers solely to the absence of parking.
Some London boroughs (e.g. Camden LB, 2009) with extensive Controlled Parking Zones, define car
free housing by a planning condition precluding occupants from applying for a
residents’ parking permit. Over time,
the growing proportion of such housing has served to constrain levels of car
ownership within these zones.
Underlying the various definitions are two different aspects of carfree
developments i.e.:
·
housing where
people live without owning a car
The UK definition ignores the first aspect and assumes that parking
restrictions will achieve the latter.
Most of the continental European examples exhibit some element of both, and
in seeking a definition, this article will focus on developments which exhibit
both, although neither has been absolutely implemented in any of the examples.
The broadest study of European carfree developments was conducted by
Scheurer (2001). His thesis
refers to six recently built carfree developments (and some others which would
not be considered carfree as defined here) of which four were sufficiently
advanced to include in his survey: Vauban (Freiburg), GWL Terrein (Amsterdam), Autofreie
Musterseidlung Florisdorf (Vienna) and Slateford Green (Edinburgh). Two other planned developments mentioned by
Scheurer have since been built: Saarlandstrasse (Hamburg) and Stellwerk 60
(Cologne). Four of these developments
were visited during the course of this study.
Many cities in Europe and elsewhere have
pedestrianised city, town and district centres.
The vast majority are mainly commercial in nature, although some include
some residential properties. Most
research on pedestrianisation has focussed on commercial centres and travel to
them; relatively little attention has been paid to the extent of, and potential
for, residential populations within pedestrianised centres. The literature (Tsubohara, 2007, Ligtermoet, 2006) did suggest, however, that Groningen in the
Netherlands contains one of the largest examples of a city centre with a
residential population, from which through traffic has been removed.
To explore and compare the different types of carfree
development, study visits were arranged to: Groningen and five carfree new
developments: Vauban (Freiburg), GWL Terrein (Amsterdam), Saarlandstrasse and
Kornweg (Hamburg) and Stellwerk 60 (Cologne).
These six examples were chosen to provide a range of differing sizes,
contexts, and approaches to the carfree concept. In each case, stakeholders including
municipal planners and organisations representing residents were
interviewed. Observations were made of
access arrangements, travel behaviour, social interactions and children’s
travel and play.
These examples suggested three types of carfree development described below:
· Vauban model
· Limited Access model
· Pedestrianised centres with residential population
Vauban, with a population of just over 5,000, unlike
the other examples discussed here, has no physical barriers to the penetration
of motor vehicles into the residential areas. Although the term autofrei (carfree) is sometimes used in
connection with Vauban, this is not how most residents would describe it. The City Council prefers the term stellplatzfrei, to describe the majority
of streets where this rule applies.
Vehicles are allowed down these streets at walking pace to pick up and
deliver but not to park, although there are frequent infractions. Residents of the stellplatzfrei ‘areas must sign an annual declaration stating
whether they own a car or not. Car
owners must purchase a place in one of the multi-storey car parks on the
periphery, run by a council-owned company.
The cost of these spaces – € 17,500 in 2006, plus a monthly fee – acts
as a disincentive to car ownership.
The planned parking capacity – 0.5 per dwelling – was
higher than the other examples described below.
At early stages of its construction, Scheurer (2001) and Nobis (2003) found just over half of households owned a car, but
today, many of the parking spaces are unused. There have been no more recent
surveys but parking levels suggest a substantial majority of households do not
own cars there today.
Although vehicles are physically able to drive down the residential
streets, and the no-parking rules are not effectively enforced, in practice,
vehicles are rarely seen moving on the stellplatzfrei
streets. Signs emphasise that children
are allowed to play everywhere, and in the absence of moving traffic, children
are more evident (Figure 1) than in the more
conventional home zones and traffic-calmed streets common elsewhere in
Freiburg.
Unlike Vauban, in GWL Terrein, Stellwerk 60,
Saarlandstrasse and Kornweg, as well as several others described in the
literature, various arrangements physically restrict the access of motor
vehicles to the residential areas. These
more common arrangements may be described as the Limited Access Model.
Saarlandstrasse and Kornweg are relatively small, with
111 and 64 dwellings respectively. In
these cases, a few parking spaces (ratios 0.15 and 0.2) intended for visitors
and deliveries are close to the housing, surrounded by semi-private space where
vehicles cannot penetrate. These small
developments are able to provide a traffic-free environment because of their
particular situations – the Saarlandstrasse site is partly surrounded by water
and Kornweg is effectively a traffic-free cul-de-sac.
GWL Terrein and Stellwerk 60 are both larger: around
600 and 400 dwellings respectively.
Stellwerk 60 includes some houses as well as apartment blocks, with
pedestrianised streets between them.
Removable bollards restrict access to the core of the site. A residents’ organisation controls these
bollards which are removed for a limited range of vehicles such as removal vans
and emergency vehicles, but not for general deliveries, which are done by hand,
sometimes using trolleys or cycle trailers (Figure 2). In the case of GWL
Terrein, the blocks of up to 8 storeys high have been built around semi-private
space where vehicles cannot penetrate (Figure 3). Entrances to the blocks are all fairly close
to the perimeter, where some time-limited parking is available. Peripheral parking, mainly in multi-storey
blocks is provided at a ratio of around 0.2 in both sites, allocated by ballot
in GWL Terrein, and separately sold in Stellwerk 60.
|
|
|
|
Figure 3 GWL
Terrein, Amsterdam |
Figure 4 Groningen
Inner Ring road |
Whereas the first two models apply to newly-built
carfree developments, most pedestrianised city, town and district centres have
been retro-fitted. Pedestrianised
centres may be considered carfree developments where they include a significant
number of residents, mostly without cars, due to new residential development
within them, or because they already included dwellings when they were
pedestrianised.
Groningen is a city in the North of the Netherlands
with a population of 181,000, including about 46,000 students (City of Groningen 2007, cited in: Pucher and Buelher,
2007). Its city centre, an area of
roughly a square kilometre, is partially pedestrianised and entirely closed to
through motor traffic: there are several car parks accessible on an ‘in and
out’ basis. Groningen is unusual because
of the size of the residential population within this largely traffic-free
centre: 16,551, a population which has been growing in recent years (Gemeente Groningen, 2008).
The original decision to restrict through traffic was
implemented in 1977 (Tsubohara, 2007). Since then,
the process has continued incrementally, with nearly half of the streets now
pedestrianised (some of them allowing bicycles). These are mainly shopping
streets although there are a few apartments above or behind the shops. Some of the other streets are open to general
traffic only at certain times of the day.
An Inner Ringroad encircles the centre, providing a fairly slow bypass
for general traffic (Figure 4). Priority in its design has been given to
cycling and public transport.
Parking for non-residents has been progressively
restricted to car parks towards the edge of the centre. A total of 2,340 parking spaces (900
on-road) are reserved for the residents, amongst whom car ownership (28.7 per
100 households) was roughly half the city average and a third of the national
average (Gemeente Groningen, 2008). Although no
separate statistics were available, the concentration of students, who
generally have lower levels of car ownership, is believed to be higher in the
centre than elsewhere in the city.
In proposing the above typology and a definition a
degree of circularity is unavoidable.
The developments studied were chosen because they have been described as
carfree, or partially carfree. Based on
absolute criteria, none of them would be described as entirely carfree. Their defining factors may be identified as
follows:
Definition of Carfree Development
Carfree
developments are residential or mixed use developments which:
·
Normally provide
a traffic free immediate environment, and:
·
Offer no parking
or limited parking separated from the residence, and:
·
Are designed to
enable residents to live without owning a car.
Though none of these is unique in itself, and each requires a judgement,
their combination encompasses all three types and distinguishes them from other
forms of development. Each of these is
discussed in turn.
The phrase ‘normally’ in the first criterion implies the need for a
judgement. Clearly vehicles are not excluded from the streets of Vauban, nor
are they always excluded from pedestrianised centres but the traffic-free
environment which obtains most of the time is a factor common to all three.
Similarly for the second criterion on parking: none of the examples
visited, nor any of those reviewed in the literature had achieved zero car
ownership. In most cases some limited parking
for residents (ratios between 0.15 and 0.5 per dwelling) explicitly allowed a
minority of them to own cars.
The third criterion reflects the observation that all the European
examples were designed with a range of sustainability objectives including
measures to facilitate living without owning a car. These measures varied according to the scale
and location of the development, from cycle storage facilities in all cases, car
club vehicles in the larger ones, to the extension of the tram network along
the main street of Vauban. ‘Design’ in
this context may also include the choice of location: for the smaller
developments, proximity to the existing public transport networks was always an
important factor.
As with carfree development there is no agreed definition of low car
development. Morris et al (2009) state
that reduced parking standards are the defining feature, although they do not
explain how “reduced” should be interpreted.
Six developments which may be considered ‘low car’ were reviewed in a
study for the UK’s Department for Transport (DfT, 2005). The parking
ratios were considerably higher than the carfree developments described in
Section 3 – varying from 0.7 to
1.5 spaces per dwelling. 1.5 was the
national maximum parking standard in the UK at that time (DETR, 2000), although the national standards were not uniformly
applied, and were subsequently abandoned (CLG, 2006). The
developments in the DfT study combined these parking standards with residential
travel plans, designed to encourage modal shift amongst the residents.
Following the approach in the previous section, low car development may
be defined as follows:
Definition of Low Car Development
Low car
developments are residential or mixed use developments which:
·
Offer limited
parking, and:
·
Are designed to reduce
car use by residents.
As with the definition of carfree development, the term ‘limited’
requires a judgement, which will vary according to the context. The principle is that the combination of
parking provision and parking controls constrains the level of car ownership:
if more parking were available, higher levels of car ownership, more typical of
the surrounding area, would result.
Although the literature on European carfree developments is limited, it
does provide some fairly strong evidence that they reduce car use and increase
walking and cycling. The literature also
suggests some other potential benefits, which this section will review.
Scheurer’s (2001) surveys found levels of car ownership varying between
8% of households in Vienna Florisdorf to 54% of households in Vauban, which was
at an early stage in its development.
Scheurer’s method of measuring modal share was rather unusual, asking
respondents to fill in the frequency of trips per month under seven specific
categories with no ‘other’ category, so comparisons with all-purpose modal
share statistics may not be precise.
Nevertheless, a clear pattern of very low car use (5% - 16% of journeys)
and high levels of walking and cycling (38% - 73%) emerges from his surveys.
Another survey of Vauban was conducted two years later when nearly half
of the planned housing was occupied.
Nobis (2003) found a similar proportion of carfree households
(“over 40 %”) and using different questions from Scheurer confirmed the low
level of car use: cycling was the most frequent mode for commuting, shopping
and leisure. Both of these studies were
conducted before the extension of the tram system to Vauban in 2006, which may
have influenced both car ownership levels and travel patterns.
The studies of European carfree development have mainly concentrated on
the mobility aspects, but they contain some evidence of other benefits.
Ornetzeder et al (2008) explored questions of social cohesion and social
contacts in Vienna’s Florisdorf carfree development. 85% - 87% of respondents agreed that there
were “good neighbourly relationships”, “solidarity within the settlement” and
that people helped each other. They
found that residents of the carfree project had more friends within the
settlement than those of the slightly larger reference settlement (average 16
versus 7). They also knew more people by
sight (101 versus 62). The authors
ascribe these differences to the carfree nature of Florisdorf, although there
were also differences in the extent of resident involvement in the planning of
the two developments.
Scheurer also comments on the favourable environment for children in
Vauban, where household sizes were particularly high. Nützel (1993) found that children were allowed to play out on the
carfree streets of Nuremberg-Langwasser at a younger age (average 3.8) than on
conventional streets nearby (average 5.6).
The observations made during this study would support these findings.
There was considerable evidence of young children playing and cycling without
direct supervision in several of the developments visited.
No specific research has been found on the health impacts of carfree
development, although some benefits could be deduced from the observations
about travel patterns and traffic generation.
It may be considered self-evident that a policy which reduces car
ownership and use would help to alleviate the problems caused by car use in
urban areas. There are, however, a
number of complicating factors.
The analysis so far suggests that the two aspects of carfree
development outlined in Section 2 have a number of
direct and indirect effects, as illustrated in Figure 5.
The indirect relationship shown between Exclusion of Vehicles and Less
Car Use illustrates the effects of making parking less convenient and
increasing the advantages of walking for short distances.
The European studies provide fairly strong evidence for the three
intermediate consequences. Ornetzder et
al (2008) found evidence to support two of the ultimate benefits: sociability,
as discussed above, and reductions in CO2 emissions: residents of
the carfree area had a carbon footprint lower than a more conventional
reference development nearby, and considerably lower than the national average.
The benefits for residents, from carfree developments in general, may
be inferred with a reasonable degree of confidence, although their extent would
depend upon the individual circumstances of each development. The benefits to the wider local area and the
global environment are more problematic.
Whether they will be achieved in practice would depend upon a number of
other factors, including other policy or design issues.
The land-related benefits would depend on how the land saved from
parking and roads was re-allocated, between gardens, open space and increased
density of dwellings (which might reduce building on undeveloped land
elsewhere). Reduced congestion would
depend upon wider policy and practice in the city and immediate area
surrounding the carfree development.
Some of the benefits shown would depend upon behavioural change amongst
residents, on which there is some evidence from the European studies. Carfree developments could reduce driving and
increase active travel for two reasons:
·
They attract
residents predisposed towards non-car travel
·
They change the
behaviour of residents (compared to conventional developments)
If the lower car use in carfree developments were solely due to the
former, then the national and global benefits would not be achieved, and the
benefits to the wider local area might be achieved at the expense of other
areas.
The evidence from the European studies suggests that carfree developments
do indeed change the behaviour of residents. Nobis found that 81% of the
carfree households in Vauban had previously owned a car; 57% gave up their cars
after moving there. Scheurer found
proportions varying from 10% (in GWL Terrein) to 62% (in Florisdorf) of
households had reduced their car ownership since moving to the carfree
developments. In Florisdorf Ornetzeder
et al (2008) found only one car owner (who was violating the rules of
occupation) amongst the 50% of male and 30% of female residents had previously
owned a car. 41% of respondents said
they were “using the bicycle much more than before”.
The main problems of carfree developments relate to
parking and the control of vehicular access.
Scheurer found dissatisfaction amongst 39% of residents with the
arrangements in Vauban. Carfree
households were unhappy that some car owners were flouting the rules by parking
on the stellplatzfrei streets. Some car owners were unhappy about the
inconvenience of parking separated from the housing. Nobis found, overall carfree households were
more satisfied with the arrangements than car owners. This finding is consistent with Borgers (2008) who found that car owners in the Netherlands
preferred parking to be adjacent rather than separated from their housing
(there was no mention of any carfree housing in the sample).
Overspill parking can also be a problem. The Vauban system of annual
declarations and expensive parking spaces has given some residents an incentive
to cheat, by registering cars in other names and parking them nearby. Freiburg City Council had taken legal action
against two persistent offenders. The
suburban location of Vauban made parking enforcement more difficult. There were no parking controls in the
adjoining district of Merzhausen, and statutory enforcement of parking rules
within Vauban itself was rare. Vehicles
were often parked on the stellplatzfrei
streets in contravention of the rules, although this did not significantly
detract from the traffic-free nature of these streets, as there were very few
vehicle movements.
The Limited Access model avoids the latter problem, although overspill
parking in the surrounding area was sometimes an issue. Most of the examples were in more urban
locations than Vauban. In GWL Terrein,
parking in the surrounding areas was already controlled, so the development did
not significantly change the parking situation there. In Stellwerk 60 some complaints had been made
about overspill parking, which was addressed by the extension of controls in
the surrounding area.
The criteria for exceptional vehicular access to Stellwerk 60 had
caused differences of opinion amongst the residents. One contested issue was whether older or
disabled residents should be allowed to drive into the interior of the
site. The rules adopted by the
residents’ association allowed minibuses for older and disabled residents, but
not private cars, inside the site.
Comparing the potential benefits of low car development to those shown
in Figure 5, the benefits related
to the exclusion of vehicles would not normally apply. Those related to reductions in car ownership
could be expected to apply to a lesser extent than in carfree developments. Although there might be some minor benefits
from lower car ownership, the environmental and quality of life benefits for
residents would depend on the exclusion of vehicles.
The UK DfT (2005) study mentioned earlier focussed on the process of
developing residential travel plans; most of the case studies had yet to begin
construction at that time. As part of a
wider study (Melia, 2010b) one of these – Poole Quarter in Dorset – was surveyed
during 2007. The findings support the
view that low car developments well sited in respect to public transport and
local services can reduce car use and increase active travel compared to
conventional developments, but there was little evidence of the improvements to
the local environment observed in the European carfree developments.
Poole Quarter was a new development of low-rise flats and town houses near
the centre of a town with a population of 139,000. The dwellings completed at the time of the
survey each had one parking space. The travel
plan aimed to promote sustainable movement through information and incentives
such as discounts on public transport. Of
the 97 households (43%) who returned questionnaires, 81% owned a car, but only 15%
owned more than one – considerably lower than the surrounding area. 26 had reduced their car ownership on moving
there, mainly from two cars to one, and 32 reported lower car use. 57 reported walking more and 19 reported
cycling more. These changes were partly
explained by proximity to the town centre, bus and rail stations but the parking
limitations also contributed. Telephone
interviews revealed some evidence of self-selection: some people who moved
there were seeking greater accessibility.
Others moved there for other reasons, but still reported a change in
their travel behaviour. Several reported
that their attitudes towards travel by alternatives to the car had become more
positive following their moves, consistent with the evidence from the European
carfree developments.
The site had been developed at higher than usual densities for that
area (108 dwellings/hectare). This meant
that even with the lower than usual parking ratios the area between the housing
was largely filled with parked cars. An
area designated as a home zone (Figure 6) was rarely used, as
intended, for children’s play; a lack of green spaces or play areas was cited
as a problem by 31% of respondents. The
most frequently cited problem, by 57%, was lack of parking. Conflict between neighbours over limited
parking spaces was mentioned by several interviewees. When residents were asked why they moved to
Poole Quarter, most mentioned the accessibility of the site, but none mentioned
anything relating to the low car concept or the travel plan – this was a
notable difference from the European carfree developments.
Figure
6 Poole
Quarter ‘home zone’
Returning to Figure 5, the benefits of low
car developments such as Poole Quarter flow entirely from a reduction in car
ownership; these are benefits to the wider area or the global environment, but
not for residents. A similar point may
be made about the UK concept of ‘car free housing’.
All of the analysis of
benefits presupposes a potential market for housing with reduced car
ownership. In the European cities where
carfree developments have been built, such a market clearly exists, and
anecdotal evidence suggests that property values may be higher in such
developments (Melia, 2010b), although there has been no specific study on this as
yet. There is some evidence that car
owners tend to prefer parking adjacent to their homes, although environmental
improvements and accessibility to public transport routes may compensate for
this to at least some extent (Borgers et al, 2008).
Melia (2010b, 2010a) has studied the potential demand for housing in
carfree developments in the UK. Two
surveys were conducted: a national online survey of members of cycling and
environmental groups and a postal survey of the Bloomsbury and Kings Cross
areas of Inner London, where car ownership is particularly low. The questionnaires were followed up by
in-depth telephone interviews with some of the respondents. This study found that potential demand exists
for owner occupied and rented accommodation, mainly amongst Carfree Choosers –
people who live without a car by choice.
These people have higher incomes than other non owners of cars. They tend to be younger than average and are
more likely to live alone. They are
particularly concentrated in the inner areas of larger cities and their
preferences for neighbourhoods and housing types tend to favour urban high
density living.
A substantial minority amongst them would prefer to live in smaller
settlements or less urban locations but their transport needs mean that in practice,
most such locations are not suitable.
Many of these people acquire a car, often reluctantly at first,
following such a move. For the small
minority of Carfree Choosers who live outside large cities proximity to good
rail services is often a prerequisite, although more research is needed to
establish the specific factors which enable people to choose carfree living in
different locations.
This study also explored, through interviews with developers and a
senior civil servant, why very few carfree developments – none of any size –
have been built in the UK so far. The
reasons related partly to the innate conservatism of the UK housing industry (Ball, 1999), partly to the lifestyles and attitudes of developers
and partly to a belief that parking exerts a strong positive influence on
property values. This belief is based
mainly on comparisons between similar properties with and without parking. The effects of traffic and traffic-removal on
property values are not generally considered, as there is little evidence on
this from within the UK.
Although the proposed definitions allow for hybrids and intermediate
cases, the evidence reviewed here suggests some important differences in
concept and outcomes between carfree and low car developments. The three defining criteria of carfree
developments: the traffic-free environment, limited separated parking and
design to support carfree living all contribute to the range of benefits
illustrated in Figure 5. Low car developments constrain car ownership
but do not provide a traffic-free environment, nor do they necessarily support
carfree living: the aim at Poole Quarter was more limited: to reduce car
ownership to one per household. This
approach leads to less traffic generation with benefits for the wider local
area and the global environment but brings very limited benefits to the
residents of the development.
The traffic-free environment is generally valued by the residents of
European carfree areas, and this may increase property values, although more
research is needed to quantify this. As
this does not apply to low car developments, it may be argued that they offer
‘the worst of both worlds’ to their residents: with no tangible benefits to
offset the disadvantage of limited parking. It may be possible to design low
car developments in ways which bring greater benefits to the residents. To the extent that this involves separating
or removing traffic, this would lead to a hybrid or intermediate case.
The main problems of carfree development relate to parking management
within the development and/or surrounding areas. These problems are not confined to carfree
developments: any development where parking is constrained is likely to encounter
challenges in this respect. Although the availability of parking is generally
much lower in carfree developments, car ownership also tends to be lower.
The evidence reviewed in this article suggests that where feasible,
carfree developments offer significant benefits to policymakers – a wider range
of benefits than low car developments.
This is particularly true in circumstances where minimal traffic
generation is required. As these are
often in high density urban areas, these are also the areas where potential
demand is concentrated and where the benefits to residents of a traffic-free
environment are also likely to be greatest.
Figures (all
photographs taken by Steve Melia)
2.
Stellwerk 60,
Cologne – Bollards not Removed for Normal Deliveries
5. Benefits of carfree development
Bibliography:
Ball, M. (1999) Chasing a
Snail: Innovation and Housebuilding Firms' Strategies. Housing Studies14
(1), 9.
Borgers, A., Snellen, D.,
Poelman, J. and Timmermans, H. (2008) Preferences for Car-restrained
Residential Areas. Journal of Urban Design13 (2), 257.
Camden LB (2009) Carfree
Housing [online] [Accessed August 2009].
CLG (2006) Planning Policy
Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing London: Department of Communities and Local
Government.
Crawford, J.H. (2000) Carfree
cities. Utrecht; Charlbury: International Books; Jon Carpenter distributor.
DETR (2001) Planning
Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport. London: The Stationery Office.
DETR (2000) Planning
Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing. London: The Stationery Office.
DfT (2005) Making
Residential Travel Plans Work: Good practice guidelines for new development. [Online]:
www.dft.gov.uk: Dept for Transport, Transport 2000
Trust.
Gemeente Groningen, (2008) Statistisch
Jaarboek. [online]. [Online]: http://gemeente.groningen.nl:
.
Ligtermoet, D., (2006) Continuous
and Integral: The Cycling Policies of Groningen and Other European Cities. Rotterdam:
Fiets Beraad. (7).
Melia, S. (2010a) Potential
for Carfree Development in the UK. In: Anon. 42nd Universities
Transport Study Group Conference, Plymouth January.
Melia, S. (2010b)
Potential for Carfree Development in the UKPhD, University of the West of
England. Available online: www.stevemelia.co.uk.
Morris, D., Enoch, M.,
Pitfield, D. and Ison, S. (2009) Car-free development through UK community
travel plans. Urban Design and Planning162 (1), 19-27.
Nobis, C. (2003) The Impact
of Car-Free Housing Districts on Mobility Behaviour – Case Study. In: E.
Beriatos, C.A. Brebbia, H. Coccossis and A. Kungolos, eds. International
Conference on Sustainable Planning and Development, Skiathos Island, Greece Southampton:
WIT, pp 701-720.
Nützel, M., (1993) Nutzung
und Bewertung des Wohnumfeldes in Großwohngebieten am Beispiel der
Nachbarschaften U und P in Nürnberg-Langwasser. Bayreuth: Universitat
Bayreuth. (119).
Ornetzeder, M., Hertwich,
E.G., Hubacek, K., Korytarova, K. and Haas, W. (2008) The environmental effect
of car-free housing: A case in Vienna. Ecological Economics65 (3),
516-530.
Pucher, J. and Buelher, R.
(2007) At the Frontiers of Cycling: Policy Innovations in the Netherlands,
Denmark and Germany. World Transport Policy & Practice13 (13), .
Reutter, U. (1996) Car-free
households: who lives without an automobile today? World Transport Policy
& Practice2 (4), 32.
Scheurer, J. (2001) Urban
Ecology, Innovations in Housing Policy and the Future of Cities: Towards
Sustainability in Neighbourhood CommunitiesThesis (PhD), Murdoch University
Institute of Sustainable Transport.
Tsubohara, S., (2007) The
effect and modification of the Traffic Circulation Plan (VCP)-traffic plannign
in Groningen in the 1980s. Groningen: Urban and Regional Studies Institute.
(317).
[1] Although the spelling of the terms is often inconsistent, UK documents tend to separate (car free) or hyphenate (car-free) the adjective. Apart from quotations, ‘car free’ will be used to distinguish the UK definition from the European-derived definition proposed in this study.