Monday, 7 February 2011

Urban Planning in the "War on the Motorist".

Motoring has never cost more? Not true says Joe Dunkley.

What is probably true is that motoring is a painful cost for many people. But paradoxically, it’s the fall in the cost of motoring that has caused this problem. During the good times of the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, more and more people have built themselves into a car dependency. Car ownership is higher than ever because the cost has been falling for so long. And so, with everybody owning a car, our houses have moved further from our work places, our village shops and services have closed, and the bus service has been withdrawn. This in turn pushes more people to buy and run a car, even if they can not really afford to do so and were quite happy living without one until the shops closed. And when the good times turn bad — when wages are frozen, when office locations are merged, and when redundancies are handed out — you can not simply give up the car. The world changed.
If one accepts this analysis, and I do, the problem is that this car dependency is now built into the very fabric of the environment. For 10 years, town centre housing developments containing 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings have been built with only one parking space each - the law demands this. This basically renders them impossible dwellings for a household with two earners. This then forces those people into the only dwelling they can afford with more than one car parking space - the new-build estate of 3 bed "executive" homes on the edge of town - the ones a mile or more from any shop, pub or amenity. This forces, reinforces and habituates car use, not what the framers of the law desired.

The problem is the planning law is so restrictive, only the very rich can afford what they want. I know of no-one who dreams of an identikit "executive" home in identical bricks, to identical plans on identical streets made by the same people, to those on the outskirts of every other town in the land. But getting planning permission for anything else is nigh on impossible. The market must be opened up to other models of high-density living which facilitate cars as they are used but allow other means of transport. This means making it harder to build lots of identical dwellings and encourage smaller, more innovative builders. Tight regulation of planning, as in everything else, supports the big faceless player against the insurgent with good ideas. Does anyone else think it sad that "turn of the millenium architecture" will be dominated by Barrat estates? Without ideas, car ownership will continue to be built into the environment. I don't have any bright ideas, but I am sure someone does and Overprescriptive planning ensures their ideas are aborted.

The Labour government tried to price the motorist off the road. The market responded by making cars cheaper, and making petrol a loss leader for the shop. The government tried to make motoring more unpleasant by adding speed-bumps, but this just made buses and cycling equally miserable and encouraged people to buy bigger cars for which speed humps are less of a problem. Again, the diametric opposite of what was intended. The police tried to cut motoring by putting speed cameras everywhere and succeeded in alienating the hard-working middle classes.

The Tories hinted at a change of approach, and promised to end the "war on the motorist", but will succeed in merely in increasing congestion if they are successful in making motoring more pleasant. It is likely that cycling infrastructure will be seen as unnecessary spending in the age of Austerity so few journeys will be substituted. Despite the end of the "war", motoring will be continue to be miserable, whilst few alternatives are offered. If we continue to say the car is vital, it surely makes more sense to make car ownership less vital AND provide realistic alternatives.

The problem in the mean-time is not the cost of motoring. Even at the current 'take-the-piss' levels of taxation, a car is well within the means of most of the population (yes it is, financial reasons are rarely cited when people decide whether or not to drive. Outside London, failing eyesight amongst the old is a bigger reason for people to eshew driving). The reason that the great car society is struggling is that "we may have congested ourselves to the maximum level we can tolerate". Demand for road-space, and parking especially at specific times of the day, is the limiting factor in people deriving further utility from the car.

Once you accept this, easing the motorist's life becomes impossible for a politician to achieve. So what is a libertarian, aware of the vast convenience of private motor vehicles, to do? Well the approach of punishing the motorist by cost and technological surveillance has failed, and makes people miserable, which is not what we want. The trick is to make alternatives a realistic option, then encourage people to use them. Cycle lanes must be built (next to roads, the cost is negligible). Rail infrastructure must be developed, where economic. Bus, train and cycle must integrate much better than they do currently. How many people have attempted to research a trip to, for example, an airport by public transport, only to give up and take the car, because buses don't integrate with trains without a 2 hour wait in a damp "shelter". Even with the sheer cost and unpleasantness of airport car parking, most of the time public transport cannot compete.

The message to Government is stop punishing the motorist, he's doing that to himself, but instead make alternatives realistic: those of us who might WANT to cycle 40 miles to see family on a weekend should be ABLE to do so instead of being unable to find a route which doesn't involve a suicidal 3-mile stretch of fast, narrow b-roads. Any journey of less than 10 miles can easily be achievable by bicycle, but is rarely attempted because the roads are so unfriendly. Ensure what little infrastructure there is doesn't peter out into a pathetic half-arsed pot-holed track before eventually disappearing like the "national cycle route" between Cambridge and Newmarket.

Finally making people realise that the car addiction is something that they CAN do something about. People who cycle to work tend to be evangelical about the subject. I feel better and it saves money. Living near shops means that the hell of the supermarket car park is avoided. And because my commute is less than 20 minutes (because of hills, I've done the return journey in less than 10) I have an extra hour at work AND an extra hour at home compared to people commuting into London from where I live. "Nudge", much derided, is not "statism light". Pointing out that shortening your commute by living nearer work is like earning an extra £30k as far as happiness is concerned, is not "nanny statism". Happiness economics suggests people prioritise the wrong things: a big house over a short commute for example. To make people aware of the evidence and options is not oppressive. It's common sense. Above all providing choices in transport infrastructure is not nanny statism. It's liberating for those of us who have fallen out of love with the car.

So, the experiment in the great mortoring society has gone as far as it can go. Any further increases in the number or use of cars are likely to generate negative returns to human happiness. It is Government's role therefore to provide infrastructure to other alternatives: a network of cycle tracks and city infrastructure - not to exclude the car, but to probvide an alternative, to both tribes' benefit. Motorists should remember the most tireless campaigners for smooth roads are cyclists for whom a pot-hole is not only a punctured tyre, but potentially a broken collar bone. The infrastructure can and should be built with all road-users in mind.

Every time I write about cycling vs. driving, I get more comments than posts on anything else. Most cycling blogs are strongly anti car, and anti driver, and often fail to acknowledge the vast improvements in lifestyle the car has facilitated over the past 100 years. Those improvements have dried up because we've hit a fundamental capacity limit: the simple fact that cars have to be put somewhere when not in use. If a car park is too big, it takes too long to walk from the farthest space to the destination, thus limiting the number of people who can realistically drive to the (for example) supermarket or into a central business district. Cyclists and pedestrians see more than most the sheer waste of space those parked cars take from other, more productive uses. The privatisation of public space - of fast roads which are designed for cars and cars alone, herding pedestrians into windy flyovers and unwelcoming underpasses. Above all, a car is designed specifically for the comfort of those within it. The noise and speed makes everyone else resent cars, as they render huge areas of towns no-go areas for everyone else. The noise of revving engines is not relaxing. Motoring enthusiasts will not see the vast COSTS of building a society around one means of transport and regard any admission that road building and capacity increases are not going to have any effect on congestion, as heretical.

The tribes of road users react as any competing users of a scarce resource always do: They compete, savagely.

Changing factors such as school runs, and work start/finish times would increase the capacity. Perhaps tax incentives for companies and schools who start at unconventional times? Tax incentives to encourage home-working? This is the thinking behind GPS-based road pricing (though I have significant and probably insoluble privacy concerns about this). The list of potential sticking plasters on the problem of congested roads and the misery they create, is endless before you reach the "price the poor off the road" approach of the last government, however capacity freed in this way will continue to be used up.

I am not sure that anything will work in the long-run and that car use is always going to be unsustainable, Designing our towns and cities around a more human scale will help encourage walking, cycling and shorter commutes and that people will therefor be happier. Some form of private vehicular solution will always be needed however. Advocates of public transport will need to consider the 3am cross country drive when a parent is taken ill and accept that people's lives cannot be reduced a simple commute. Services such as street car provide a better solution for those who have managed to remove the car from their daily routine, and I suspect will become more popular.

Most libertarians are skeptical of "nudge" politics, and rightly so. Politicians love to try to control us. But urban planning is an important function of Government, even if it controls the space, facilitating (or destroying) communities, and remains the best hope for encouraging alternatives to the car (note this is different from discouraging car use). The truth is there is no single answer available at the moment. Intelligent urban planning has something to do with it, price has something to do with it. Above all, the alternative to the car must be made easier, especially cycling.

But I suspect the answer will come when the technology changes: when cars drive themselves. The new technology could well lead to new models of car use and ownership: instead of owning the vehicle - depreciation is the biggest cost facing the motorist - users will be able to use a car to take them to work, which will then go off and do something else - each autonomous vehicle could transport 3 people to work so Fewer cars will be needed for the same utility. Land, currently given over to parking, may return to lawns or flowerbeds. Or sheds where men tinker, anything other than a square of tarmac on which expensive engineering depreciates. Some may wish to continue to own their vehicle and pay for the privilege, and they should be continue to be free to do so. What we need is an urban environment ready for change.

I'll declare my interest. I hate driving. I regard it as a complete waste of time, stressful, misery-making hell of sitting in a box concentrating to an exhausting degree on a boring simple motor task. I can't wait until commercially available vehicles are summonsed from their parking space by text message, to pick you up from your home to whisk you wherever you wish to go whilst you concentrate on something else: a good book, the daily paper, your morning e-mails or whatever. Anything beats driving. Of course some people LOVE driving, the sound of the engine, the speed, the g-forces of braking and cornering, and having driven a really fast car round a track, I completely understand. But just as the Horse, once replaced as a means of transport, became a recreational hobby (to the enormous benefit of the horses themselves), driving too will be relegated to race-tracks. I doubt even the most hard-core petrol-head really relishes a commute through Slough on a damp and crowded Wednesday evening in February.



16 comments:

banned said...

I enjoyed learning to cycle in London and continued to do so for many years after aquiring a motobike and a car. Driving in London became so impossible that I did something about it. I left.

A great deal of traffic congestion is, has been and will continue to be, the direct result of the 60 year old Statist "man from the ministry knows best" post-war planning policy known as zoning which insists that we must live in one place, shop/play in another while working somewhere else.

That was all well and good when 'work' meant smelly factories, noisy heavy industry and dangerous mines.
But it doesn't anymore. 'Work' now means low rise office buildings occupied by call centres and insurance companies which, like schools, should be built within residential areas so that at least some of us could walk to work instead of which new office blocks continue to be built at the back end of beyond forcing us to drive or risk the tender mercies of public transport.

Bessie said...

We have an almost car-free lifestyle: I work from home and my husband walks to the railway station. We still have a car, because we need it for holidays, family visits, and to transport our kids around town safely (and no, those trailers that attach to a bike are not safe). But we don't even have the luxury of one designated parking space: we have to take our chances on the street, along with everybody else. As we're half a mile from the town centre and the station, we get people parking to work and shop, so we don't dare use the car during the day in case we can't find a parking space when we get home. We also get the overspill from nearby streets that have paid/residents' parking. And what is the Council's response to this? Recently they were talking about building housing in our area without even the opportunity for street parking, so residents wouldn't be able to own a car at all. Brilliant.

Jackart said...

I agree with Banned's comment on zoning. Allow the conversion of business to residential and vice versa.

Bessie, perhaps you should consider getting rid of your car, and Hiring one when necessary. For me, I reckon if you use it fewer than 4 days a month, you'll be in profit after insurance etc...

lost_nurse said...

Excellent post.

Properly integrated cycle/railway infrastructure - build it and they will come.

Bessie said...

Jackart, we have considered ditching our car and using Streetcar instead. There's one kept just around the corner from us.

But at the moment it won't quite work for us. We need the car at least three evenings a week during the winter to get the younger kids to music or maths lessons (we use bikes in the summer). Also, we would sometimes need other kinds of vehicle and other kinds of rental arrangement, e.g. a van to take stuff to the dump, and a big car or camper van for holidays (and camper vans can be pretty expensive).

Personally, I can't stand driving and would happily use the bike, train or bus for everything!

Darsalon said...

I have to admit I'm getting into the whole walking to work thing here. My work luckily moved to within 15 minutes walk of my place recently and my life has improved as a result. Feeling fitter because of the exercise, happier because it's a pleasant walk through woodland and less stressed out when the car has gone wrong because there's no pain in getting to work when I don't have the car available.
It really is as Jackart says, urban planning that needs to be looked at so more of this can be enabled for people. The benefits are enormous in wellbeing and in costs as I see it.
Oh yes, and as for driving I actually enjoy it more the less I've done of it. Journeys I do are normally outside of rush hour now so there's less being stuck in queues for one thing

Anonymous said...

Jackart, to a country bumpkin like myself this seems like a very Towny post. I'm fortunate in so much as my work seldom takes me into built up areas at rush hour and my wifes commute is quite manageable too. My advice would be 1) move to the countryside, 2) get a job in the countryside, 3) buy the biggest and heaviest 4x4 you can afford because the council won't be arsed gritting your area in winter, and then spend the rest of your time blaming Labour and whinging like hell that the cost of diesel is so high!

Taking your arguement about standards of welbeing for horses increasing when they were no longer beasts of burden you will see that the same thing applies to push bikes too!

Mr Windy Pants.

Travelgall said...

"People who cycle to work tend to be evangelical about the subject".

Dude, you won't shut up about the bloody subject.

Anybody who wants to take public transport to an airport is out of their tiny fucking minds. I had to do it, I no longer do. Being in control of ones own destiny has made my travelling life a joy. No heaving heavy bags, knocking people flying, no waiting for connections. No risks of delays. Reduced costs. No being cramped in carrages you wouldn't carry veal in. Throw in a ticket that makes me turn left on a plane and I'll die of happiness.

Anybody that travels as more than one person is mad to take public transport. Wife and Kiddies are a ridiculous extra cost on Busses, trains etc.

In your defence, the cost of fuel will mean that sooner or later an awful lot of journeys will be made by your primative, uncomfortable and ridiculous method of transport. The Horror of even more people in spandex and clingy US Postal Service racing tops will greet us in the future. And that my friend is a far more horrific sight than a car park.

Anonymous said...

...spoken like a true city-dweller. If you live in the country the car is a necessity not a luxury.

Like most Politicians making decisions for us, they see everything with blinkers, it's all city-centric, moreover London-centric.

Anyway, motorbikes are the answer to congestion, but they are legislating them off the road. Just to begin you need £100 and days CBT then theory test with Hazard perception, then module one off road, then module two on road with independent driving, then if you passed on a 125cc you have to wait 2 years to ride a 'big' bike over 33bhp...and it'll get worse in 2013 with more EU regs that will require another test or 7hrs extra training, to progress to the bigger bike. Direct Access (£750ish) will then be for 24 yr olds not the current 21 yr olds.

I ride push-bikes (to work sometimes at 35mile round trip), but out in the sticks you definitely need a car... for Hospital, Doctors, shopping, etc Public transport could not cover some out of the way places adeqately and as it is at the moment it is shit in a big way. You seem to be talking from a narrow viewpoint

Jackart said...

For those of you accusing me of being a townie, I am the wrong way round: I live in a market town but work in a village.

I am not saying the private motor car will be a thing of the past, just that it IS vital now, but doesn't have to be with a bit of thought.

Allow people who don't like driving to abandon the car ownership & Hire one when necessary. Cycling needs to be a viable alternatvive if this is to happen. This will be to the benefit of those remaining fat people in silly boxes, who will have more space.

If cars or similar are to continue to do what they do, they have to be used where appropriate, and necessary. People should not consider popping 500 yards to the shops in one.

Anonymous said...

Some interesting thoughts, and I particularly like your analysis of how we ended up with such a high degree of car dependency. However there are a few problems with what I assume are your solutions.

Firstly 85% of all passenger-kilometres in the UK are by car. The railways, despite a bumper year in 2010, haven't a hope in hell of reducing this any time soon, if ever. Neither have buses or coaches, or any other form of public transport. Nowhere near enough capacity can be built to replace cars.

Secondly I note your ideas about cycling. I used to cycle a lot when young, but like a very high percentage of the population these days I'm old. My hips don't work and plenty of other bits besides. Cycling is not an option for lots of people. Besides, again on a passenger-kilometre basis, bicycles are the most dangerous form of transport - more so than motorcycles. But I guess that's one of your points.

Thirdly, I'm not sure where you live but you seem to be taking a very city-centric view of transport - perhaps even London-centric. Lots of us, including me, don't live in cities or even towns. We have no public transport. We have to use a car. Indeed it's a major complaint of my friends in Scotland and Wales that people in the 'Home Counties' want to tax cars off the road little realising that the cost is borne disproportionately by those of us that don't live in the 'Home Counties'. Have you seen the price of petrol in the more far flung parts of the UK?

Sometimes the answers are not quite as simple as they seem.

Cheers Chris

Mark said...

If car use is significantly reduced, even locally, the parasites that feed off them will require a new host.

If that was people who ride bikes, I would laugh myself sick.

Seriously dude, any restriction that can be applied to cars can be applied to bikes. Don't think (that because you think) bikes are "healthy" or "green" that you will be immune. It's just a matter of time.

You can be taxed, you can be required to do "MOTs", you can be required to pass tests. Above all, the laws you are currently allowed to treat with contempt can be enforced (and a lot of new ones can be invented).

Think about it

Jackart said...

Mark. Good point. But the evidence is clear. For example laws demanding cyclists wear helmets prevent cycling more than they protect cyclists. There is always a call for more regulation, but cyclists are very good at telling nanny state to fuck off.

Anonymous said...

They would have to ban kids from riding bikes.

Can you think of them convulsing on that one, one side of the nanny state saying kids should exercise more, one side trying to ban them.

Ha

Lord T said...

I don't think it is the governments job to do nudge us into getting away from cars. If they just left us to our own devices then we wouldn't be doing the things we do.

They cause these problems as you point out but then you suggest that they need to do something else. What could possibly go wrong?

Let them just get out of everything. We will sort ourselves out better than they ever could. It'll take a while though. We have 60 years of them screwing it up to fix and they don't actually think they are doing wrong so they will not stop fiddling.

Jackart said...

Lord T, urban planning and roads provision are two functions that all but the most insane minarchist libertarian agrees are the proper function of Governmnet.

An unplanned city looks like the favelas outside of Rio. A planned city looks like Bath. Which do you prefer?

Governments provide roads and they should therefore, instead of forcing us to drive, allow us to cycle by providing the infrastructure to enable that.

Unthinking libertarianism does us all a diservice by being ridiculous.

There was an error in this gadget