In the first of many papers expected from the study, the researchers found that, a year after the ultra-low emissions zone took effect, 2 out of every 5 London students in the study had switched from “passive” to “active” ways of getting to school. So instead of being chauffeured to school by their parents, the students started walking, biking, scootering, or taking public transit. On the other hand, in Luton, which acted as a control group, 1 in 5 made the same switch to modes that got them up and active, but an equal proportion switched to passive travel. But in London’s ultra-low emissions zone, shifting to driving was rare.
The implications of getting kids active, even if it’s just for their pre-class commute, are intuitive but important.
“Walking and biking and scootering to school is better for the child, better for the family, and better for the environment,” said Alison Macpherson, an epidemiologist at York University in Toronto who researches ways to protect and promote the health and safety of children. (She was not involved in the London study.)
“It’s a great way for children to start their day,” she said. “You can imagine just being thrown in a car and thrown out of a car is not the most calming way.” Walking or biking to school, on the other hand, can be calming and conducive to concentration, Macpherson said, potentially even improving academic performance. But perhaps most importantly, at a time when an epidemic of childhood obesity is on the rise worldwide, walking or wheeling to and from school can get kids more active.
Car dependency
Most climate advocates have, I think rightfully, moved away from anything that is focused on this type of personal sacrifice. Land use changes mistakenly get lumped in with this strain of environmentalism. People think that we are going to have to force people to live in places they don’t want to live and that will be unpopular.
The reality is the opposite. We are currently forcing many Americans to live in auto-dependent, low-density places where they don’t want to live. Many of these folks would choose to live in walkable, urban neighborhoods if they could. This dynamic is most easily seen in the long history of surveys that ask Americans if they would rather live in a smaller home that is in a walkable neighborhood close to amenities and jobs or a larger home where you have to drive to get to those same things. While it’s true that a majority of Americans pick the bigger home, a large minority, 42% in Pew Research’s 2023 survey, choose the smaller home near amenities. The problem is that, today, very little of the US fits the preferences of that 42%.
In Smart Growth America’s 2023 Foot Traffic Ahead report, only 1.2% of neighborhoods in the 35 largest metropolitan areas met these criteria. This huge disparity in supply and demand has also contributed to big price premiums for more compact walkable neighborhoods. Many millions of Americans want to choose the smaller home that is close to things, but single-family zoning, large lot-size requirements, and a thicket of other regulations severely limit our ability to build new walkable neighborhoods and also make it hard to add homes in these existing neighborhoods. To get more climate-friendly land use patterns, we don’t need to force people against their will: we just need to remove those limitations so the 40% of Americans who are locked out of these neighborhoods can live where they want.
Part 1 here. Parts 3 and 4 still to come, apparently.
The use of cars in cities has many negative impacts, including pollution, noise and the use of space. Yet, detecting factors that reduce the use of cars is a serious challenge, particularly across different regions. Here, we model the use of various modes of transport in a city by aggregating Active mobility (A), Public Transport (B) and Cars (C), expressing the modal share of a city by its ABC triplet. Data for nearly 800 cities across 61 countries is used to model car use and its relationship with city size and income. Our findings suggest that with longer distances and the congestion experienced in large cities, Active mobility and journeys by Car are less frequent, but Public Transport is more prominent. Further, income is strongly related to the use of cars. Results show that a city with twice the income has 37% more journeys by Car. Yet, there are significant differences across regions. For cities in Asia, Public Transport contributes to a substantial share of their journeys. For cities in the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, most of their mobility depends on Cars, regardless of city size. In Europe, there are vast heterogeneities in their modal share, from cities with mostly Active mobility (like Utrecht) to cities where Public Transport is crucial (like Paris or London) and cities where more than two out of three of their journeys are by Car (like Rome and Manchester).
Our world is built up of roads and cars to get us to our destination! But what about cycling and even walking? Have we been brainwashed to think that the car is always king? Si goes on a deep dive into just how we are convinced to think that modern car culture is acceptable in our lives!
Automobile-first ideals dominate in the U.S. Our countryside is carved up by superhighways connecting bedroom suburbs with sprawling cities, with too many nowherevilles surrounded by parking lots and strip malls and ringed with sound barrier walls—all built to serve the sacred automobile. Atop former towns and neighborhoods, broad avenues are lined with drive-through hamburger stands and banks.
Across the country, the car is the only way to get around and not only in rural places. This reliance spawns an ever more disconnected nation of drivers suffering an epidemic of road rage. As Lancaster University sociologist John Urry wrote, “the car is immensely flexible and wholly coercive,” promising freedom but trapping drivers into inhabiting their cars.
In "you can't fight geometry" news:
- In short: A NSW parliamentary inquiry into the Rozelle Interchange heard from a number of experts on Friday.
- One expert warned the creation of two new motorways will compound traffic issues across Sydney.
What's next? The parliamentary committee is due to report its findings in June.- A former senior transport official has warned Sydney's Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway projects will be a "bloody disaster" for traffic.
Civil engineer Les Wielinga, a former CEO at the now-defunct Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), made the fiery comments at a NSW parliamentary inquiry into the bungled Rozelle Interchange.
The Western Harbour Tunnel, which is under construction, will allow drivers travelling between the inner west and the North Shore to bypass the CBD.
Entries and exits to the tunnel will lie at the Ernest Street interchange in Cammeray and near the Falcon Street interchange at North Sydney.
"It's going to be a bloody disaster," Mr Wielinga told the upper house committee on Friday.
This is so great.
Welcome to City Smart Toys, where we're on a mission to reframe playtime with urban toys, books and vehicles! It all started with a simple realization – after our 3 year old received his 3rd(!) plastic parking garage set, we knew there had to be more to playtime than endless loops of car-centric toys. As parents, we were determined to provide a different kind of play experience, one that celebrates the richness and diversity of urban life.
At City Smart Toys, we believe that playtime should reflect the vibrancy of urban places around us. That's why we've curated a thoughtful collection of toys and books that embrace the urban experience in all its glory. From bustling cityscapes to boundless imaginations, our selection is designed to inspire creativity, exploration, and a sense of wonder.
This mission is not anti-car. Many families depend on cars to get around because their neighbourhoods and towns are designed a certain way. For certain trips, cars are indeed the best option. But there is a clear imbalance that is apparent when you step into any toy-store. Our goal is to fix this. Yes, car toys are great fun but there need to be options for more urban-positive alternatives.
Join us in embracing the urban-positive movement and discover a world of play that goes beyond the car, the parking lot and the traffic jam. Whether it's through imaginative city adventures or captivating stories, let's redefine playtime together – one toy at a time.
According to new survey of U.S. drivers, the average American is spending 20 percent of her monthly income on auto loans, fuel, insurance, maintenance, which is around twice or at the absolute upper limit of what financial experts recommend they spend on transportation costs, depending on who you ask. (Federal statistics estimate that the average U.S. household spent 15 percent of its income on transportation in 2022, but that includes those who are lucky enough to live in communities where they can rely on other, cheaper modes.)
Ten percent of surveyed drivers, meanwhile, estimated they spent 30 percent of their take-home pay on car payments alone, while more than 12 percent "found themselves living paycheck to paycheck due to the financial strain of their cars," the report authors wrote. Close to 17 percent of the survey respondents say they'd gotten a second job specifically to afford their vehicle.
[…]
The Marketwatch study did not analyze how respondents' local transportation systems influenced their likelihood to take on onerous automobile costs, but a larger March 2020 survey from Data for Progress found that 80 percent of all Americans feel they have "no choice but to drive as much as they do."
Despite the widespread harm caused by cars and automobility, governments, corporations, and individuals continue to facilitate it by expanding roads, manufacturing larger vehicles, and subsidising parking, electric cars, and resource extraction. This literature review synthesises the negative consequences of automobility, or car harm, which we have grouped into four categories: violence, ill health, social injustice, and environmental damage. We find that, since their invention, cars and automobility have killed 60–80 million people and injured at least 2 billion. Currently, 1 in 34 deaths are caused by automobility. Cars have exacerbated social inequities and damaged ecosystems in every global region, including in remote car-free places. While some people benefit from automobility, nearly everyone—whether or not they drive—is harmed by it. Slowing automobility's violence and pollution will be impracticable without the replacement of policies that encourage car harm with policies that reduce it. To that end, the paper briefly summarises interventions that are ready for implementation.