Harness tech to build for a ‘less car-dependent’ future London, says new report

Harness tech to build for a ‘less car-dependent’ future London, says new report

New approaches to housebuilding are urgently needed if London is to reap the benefits from technological advances in how we move around the city – and tackle the challenges of traffic congestion and climate change. That’s the message of new research published this week by the Centre for London think tank.

The report, Building for a New Urban Mobility, warns that new technology, including greater digital connectivity, improved and cheaper electric vehicles and increasingly autonomous driverless vehicles, could actually increase congestion and pollution by putting more vehicles on the road.

With air pollution “far above safety thresholds” and London still one of the most congested cities in the world, with the one-and-a-half-hour daily commute longer than anywhere else in the UK, technology should be harnessed to support a “less car-dependent future”, the report says.

A “new urban mobility” approach is needed, it argues, putting “walking, cycling, public transport and light electric vehicles at the heart of planning new neighbourhoods”.

The analysis suggests this poses a difficult challenge, with developers and planners continuing to “lock citizens into 20th century patterns of car ownership and use, by allocating space and investment to private car parking.”

Despite two decades of City Hall policy promoting high density housing close to public transport, new developments are more likely than existing housing to include car parking space, and their residents are more likely to own and use a car, with 66 per cent car ownership in new developments compared to the 54 per cent London average. Many residents “also use their cars frequently, even in areas with excellent public transport,” the report finds.

In contrast, bicycle parking “is rarely provided with the same generosity”, with a 2016 survey of 71 new developments in west London finding that almost half the bike parking spaces promised by developers had not been installed. And limited resources and expertise in council planning departments, alongside sometimes outdated assumptions about travel – for example, the major Barking Riverside development being based on transport assumptions and modelling from 2004  – hamper “future-proofing”.

On current progress, London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s target for 80 per cent of journeys to be on foot, by bike or public transport by 2041 will only be reached in 2070, the report concludes. Even so, the report argues that the scale of new development in the capital – there will be a 20 per cent increase in new homes over the coming decade, according to City Hall forecasts – nevertheless represents a “unique opportunity” for change.

Key recommendations include the need for stronger political leadership in planning for fewer cars, piloting “new urban mobility zones” in every borough and creating “mobility hubs”, with government and City Hall support – public spaces for transport interchange including shared modes of transport such as car, bike and taxi hire and parcel pick-up – alongside a new focus on flexible and adaptable design to respond to technological change.

Climate change meant the need for action was urgent, said Waltham Forest council leader Clare Coghill, speaking at the report’s launch. “We need to close roads. It’s got to happen,” she said, citing outcomes of the council’s £30 million “mini-Holland” schemes promoting cycling and reducing unnecessary car journeys.

Photograph: Addison Lee hire car in Canary Wharf.

OnLondon.co.uk is dedicated to providing fair, thorough, anti-populist coverage of London’s politics, development and culture. It depends on donations from readers and would like to pay its freelance contributors better. Can you spare £5 (or more) a month? Follow this link if you would like to help. Thank you.



Categories: News

1 Comment

  1. Caroline says:

    I read a lot of these ideas on transport and reducing car dependency and they always seem to be from people and organisations that seem to assume that people in London who own a car only or mostly drive it actually in London. I wonder whether any of them ever consider that a lot of people in London only own a car because they use it to drive OUT of London, to places where public transport is very poor or non existent and which would be completely impossible and impractical to get to without a car. By all means consider ways of making public transport/cycling/buses etc more attractive WITHIN London and for short journeys, and encourage car drivers to switch modes within the city, but please think again about measures that would make it impossible or hugely expensive to own and keep a car at all in London such as draconian restrictions on parking and permanent road closures. I strongly believe most car owners do want to make a positive difference to the environment (the huge interest in electric cars bears that out) but in the absence of a public transport system countrywide that is as good as London’s (something which is not in the control of the London authorities), restricting car ownership and/or making it very difficult or expensive to own a car at all is just going to make that section of the population that needs a car to get to places outside London feel unfairly targeted when they feel they have, and often practically do have, no other choice. Solving the pollution, transport and climate crisis is only going to be made much harder by demonising and infuriating a large section of the population who need to drive in some circumstances but who may otherwise be (or wish to become) environmentally conscious – instead I believe one needs listen to and respect the views and understand the arguments and needs of those who drive, and therefore be able to understand what would need to be done to persuade them to make a positive choice not to use a car, rather than threatening simply to ban or severely restrict their car use. IMO bans and restrictions are often counterproductive as they simply stoke animosity and anger which can often have the opposite effect from the one desired.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *