Twelve Best Ways to Get Cars Out of Cities

Guess what the following statistics have in common: The second-largest (and still growing) source of climate pollution in Europe. The leading cause of death among children in the US and Europe. One of the main sources of noise pollution that causes stress, as well as air pollution that shortens the lives of people living in European cities. One of the major factors widening the gap between rich and poor urban residents. The answer? Vehicles on our streets, especially passenger cars.

Despite the (slow) transition to electric vehicles, current consumer trends are making car travel even more inefficient and unequal. An analysis published in 2021 found that emissions reductions from electric vehicles were offset by the growing number of SUVs. SUVs alone now produce more carbon emissions worldwide than Canada or Germany, and are contributing more to the increase in climate pollution than heavy industry.

Although cars are sometimes essential for mobility and social inclusion — particularly for people with disabilities — cities designed primarily around cars tend to disadvantage already marginalized groups the most. In the United Kingdom, women, young and older people, members of minority groups, and people with disabilities make up a large share of the lowest-income households, 40% of which do not own a car. By contrast, almost 90% of the highest-income households own at least one car.

In other words, the driving habits of a minority impose high costs on society as a whole — and this is doubly true in cities. Copenhagen, for example, calculated that while every kilometre travelled by bicycle generates a social benefit of €0.64, every kilometre travelled by car results in a net social loss of €0.71 when the impacts on people’s health and quality of life (physical and mental health, accidents, traffic) and the environment (climate, air pollution and noise) are taken into account.

Cycling bridge in Copenhagen

Every kilometre of car travel replaced by cycling therefore generates a social benefit of €1.35. By comparison, switching from an internal combustion engine car to an electric vehicle would save just a few cents, according to this analysis.

Reducing Car Traffic in Cities

Just half a century ago, the Danish capital was dominated by cars. Following campaigns by civic initiatives seeking to change transport policy and public space — including replacing parking spaces with safe, segregated cycle tracks — the share of cycling in all trips in Copenhagen has risen from 10% in 1970 to 35% today.

In 2016, moreover, bicycles overtook cars for the first time in the city in terms of the number of trips made over the course of a year.

Although many different measures to reduce car use have been tried around the world, urban policymakers, planners and residents still lack clear, evidence-based guidance on how to reduce car use in cities. A study, co-authored with Paula Kuss of Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies and published in Case Studies on Transport Policy, seeks to fill this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of different measures aimed at reducing car use in cities.

The study evaluates the 12 most effective measures introduced by European cities in recent decades, based on real-world data from different types of interventions — from the “carrot” of programmes encouraging people to walk or cycle to work to the “stick” of removing free parking.

The assessment reflects cities’ successes not only in terms of measurable reductions in car traffic, but also in improving quality of life and promoting sustainable mobility.

The researchers analysed nearly 800 peer-reviewed studies and case studies from across Europe published since 2010. They focused on research that quantified where and how cities had successfully reduced car use.

According to the review, among the most effective measures is congestion charging, which reduces car traffic by 12–33%, as well as creating car-free streets and segregated cycle tracks, which have reduced car use in city centres by up to 20%.

The complete ranking of the 12 most effective measures for reducing car traffic is presented in the table below.

Inequality associated with car use

Cars are inherently inefficient and unequal in the way they use space and resources. On average, they spend 96% of their time parked, taking up valuable urban space that could be put to more useful purposes, such as housing or public parks. In Berlin, for example, car users occupy an average of 3.5 times more public space than people who do not use cars — primarily because of on-street parking.

And it is primarily wealthier people who drive the most. In Europe, the richest 1% of earners travel almost four times as many kilometres as the average driver, and car travel accounts for around 21% of their personal carbon footprint. Among these highest emitters, emissions from car travel are second only to flying, which produces roughly twice as much on average.

Prioritizing cars as the main mode of transport also encourages urban sprawl. Suburban areas tend to contain larger homes with higher energy use and greater overall consumption. Households in North American suburbs have long had larger carbon footprints than those in cities — a study from Toronto, for example, found that the carbon footprint of suburban households was twice as large.

Traffic in Stockholm

It is equally clear that traffic volumes tend to grow to fill newly built roads. Transport planning, however, often ignores the fact that this “induced demand” inflates the benefits and underestimates the costs of building additional roads.

Electric vehicles are essential, but they are not a silver bullet. Because cars remain in use for a very long time, the transition to electric mobility is happening slowly. Some studies even expect the widespread adoption of electric vehicles to deliver only relatively modest emissions reductions over the next decade.

And while electric vehicles produce no harmful exhaust emissions, brake and tyre wear still generate toxic dust and microplastic pollution. Regardless of the type of propulsion, there is also the question of whether cars are an efficient use of space and resources when as much as 95% of the energy they consume is used to move their own weight rather than people and goods.

COVID-19: A missed opportunity?

The study examines innovations and experiments in urban mobility introduced before the pandemic was declared. In response to COVID-19, travel habits changed dramatically, at least initially. After a sharp decline in car traffic in spring 2020, however, traffic volumes and associated levels of climate pollution gradually returned to almost pre-pandemic levels.

In Sweden, for example, public transport use fell by approximately 42% during the first year of the pandemic, while car traffic declined by just 7%. The result was an overall increase in the share of journeys made by car.

AutoMat publication: The Pandemic as an Opportunity to Change Travel Habits

Although deeply ingrained habits, such as commuting to work by car, are difficult to change, periods of disruption to everyday life can provide an opportunity to change travel behaviour. This is partly because people who are forced to try a new mode of transport may discover unexpected benefits. To maintain these new habits, however, the physical design of cities and their infrastructure must also change.

European cities that introduced temporary cycle lanes during the pandemic saw cycling increase by a remarkable 11–48%. Today, however, we are once again seeing a return to car-oriented cities, with new traffic lanes and parking spaces once again pushing out cycle tracks and space for pedestrians.

Cyclepath in San Sebastian

Overall, the opportunities to align the post-pandemic recovery with climate goals were largely missed. Globally, probably less than 20% of government spending on pandemic measures was also linked to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

A key question for the future use of cars in cities is also the extent to which employees will return to commuting to offices by car. Well-designed policies to reduce unnecessary travel, combined with the ability to participate fully in meetings and conferences digitally, could reduce emissions by up to 94% — while also saving time. People who work remotely three or more days a week travel less overall than others. Long car commutes, however, can quickly wipe out these savings, so the best option remains living close to where you work.

There Is No One-Size-Fits-All Solution

The research is clear: if we want to improve people’s health, meet climate targets and create more pleasant cities to live in, reducing car traffic must be a priority.

Yet many governments in the US and Europe continue to heavily support car travel through various incentives — for example, subsidies for fossil fuel extraction, tax breaks for commuting by car, or favourable treatment of company cars, all of which encourage driving at the expense of other modes of transport. Ultimately, such policies reward polluters while everyone else bears the social costs.

At the same time, city governments have a wider range of tools at their disposal than many realize — from economic measures such as charges and subsidies to behavioural approaches, such as providing feedback comparing individuals’ travel behaviour with that of people around them.

The study also found that more than 75% of urban innovations that successfully reduced car use were led by local governments. And the most effective measures — such as congestion charges, parking and traffic regulations, or restricted-traffic zones — were generally implemented at the city level.

At the same time, the evidence shows that individual measures in isolation tend to be less effective — there is no one-size-fits-all solution that can solve the problem on its own. The most successful cities typically combine several different tools at once: both the “carrot” of supporting more sustainable modes of transport and the “stick” of charging for or restricting car use and parking.

12 Best Ways to Reduce Car Use in Cities

1. Congestion Charging

The most effective measure identified by the research is charging drivers to enter the city centre, with the revenue invested in sustainable forms of transport. London, one of the early pioneers of this approach, reduced traffic in the city centre by a significant 33% after introducing the charge under then-mayor Ken Livingstone in February 2003.

The daily charge, originally set at £5, gradually increased to £18, or £21 today, with some groups and vehicles exempt. Importantly, 80% of the revenue goes towards investment in public transport.

Similar systems were subsequently introduced in other European cities, including Milan, Stockholm and Gothenburg. Swedish cities also vary the charge according to the time of day. Although congestion charging significantly and sustainably reduces car traffic, it does not by itself completely solve the problem of congestion if the city continues to encourage car use through its infrastructure and policies.

2. Parking and Traffic Regulation

In many European cities, removing parking spaces and changing the layout of streets has proved highly effective — often replacing space previously allocated to cars with pedestrian areas, cycle lanes and public space.

In Oslo, for example, replacing parking spaces with pedestrian streets and cycle lanes reduced car traffic in the Norwegian capital’s city centre by as much as 19%.

Oslo. Bike lanes instead of parking

3. Restricted-Traffic Zones

Rome, traditionally one of Europe’s most congested cities, began promoting public transport by restricting car access to the city centre at certain times, allowing only residents and holders of special annual permits to enter.

This policy reduced car traffic in the Italian capital by 20% during restricted hours and by 10% even outside those hours. Fines for violations also help fund Rome’s public transport system.

4. Employee Mobility Services

According to the review, the most effective measure based solely on the “carrot” approach was an initiative in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

The city, together with private companies, provided employees with free public transport passes and introduced private shuttle buses connecting public transport stops with workplaces. Supported by a marketing campaign, the programme reduced the share of people commuting by car to the city centre by 37%.

5. Charging for Workplace Parking

Another effective tool is introducing paid parking for employees.

A large healthcare centre in Rotterdam reduced the number of employees commuting by car by 20–25% through this measure. Employees paid for parking at their workplace but could also “sell back” their parking space and use public transport instead.

This system was approximately three times more effective than a larger-scale programme in Nottingham, UK, where the city introduced a charge for employee parking spaces at companies with more than ten parking spaces. The revenue was used to support public transport, including expanding the tram network.

6. Workplace Travel Plans

Many European cities use programmes that help companies develop strategies to encourage employees to reduce car commuting.

A large UK study from 2010, covering 20 cities, found that after a combination of measures was introduced, an average of 18% of employees switched from cars to other modes of transport. The measures included company buses, public transport discounts, improved cycling infrastructure and parking restrictions.

Norwich achieved a similar result without subsidising public transport. The combination of “carrots and sticks” proved significantly more effective than the purely incentive-based approach used by the city of Brighton & Hove, where the shift amounted to just 3%.

Norwich

7. University Travel Plans

University programmes often combine support for public transport and active mobility with restrictions on parking on campus.

The most successful case in our review was the University of Bristol, which reduced car use among staff by 27% through improved cycling infrastructure and discounts on public transport.

A more ambitious programme in San Sebastián in the Basque Country targeted both staff and students at the University of the Basque Country. Although the reduction was “only” 7.2%, in absolute terms this represented a significant decrease in car traffic.

8. University Mobility Services

The Sicilian city of Catania took a purely incentive-based approach targeting students. It offered them free public transport and shuttle services to campus.

As a result, the share of students commuting by car fell by 24%.

9. Carsharing

Perhaps surprisingly, our analysis suggests that carsharing is a rather mixed measure when it comes to reducing car use in cities.

Systems that allow members to easily rent a nearby vehicle for a few hours have produced promising results in cities such as Bremen, Germany, and Genoa, Italy. On average, each shared car replaced 12–15 privately owned vehicles. An important part of the strategy was expanding the number of shared cars and stations and integrating them with residential neighbourhoods, public transport and cycling infrastructure.

Both programmes also offered carsharing to employees and were accompanied by awareness campaigns.

Other studies, however, warn of the risk that carsharing can actually encourage people who previously did not use cars to start driving more. Further research is therefore needed into how carsharing programmes can be designed to genuinely reduce overall car use.

10. School Travel Planning

The British cities of Brighton & Hove and Norwich used incentive-based measures focused on planning journeys to school. The programmes offered advice, route planning and various activities for parents and pupils aimed at encouraging walking, cycling or carpooling. They also included improvements to cycling infrastructure.

Norwich reduced the share of journeys to school made by car by 10.9% through this approach, while the effect in Brighton was approximately half as large.

11. Personalised Mobility Plans

A number of cities have experimented with individual travel plans for residents, including Marseille, Munich, Maastricht and San Sebastián.

These programmes offered residents recommendations and route planning for walking, cycling or public transport, sometimes combined with fare discounts. The resulting reduction in car use ranged from 6% to 12%.

At first glance, these figures may seem modest, but because the measures applied to the entire city population rather than a limited group such as employees or students, they can have a significant impact on reducing overall traffic.

San Sebastián also combined university mobility programmes with personalised mobility planning, which probably produced a greater effect than either measure would have achieved on its own.

12. Sustainable Mobility Apps

Mobile technology is playing an increasingly important role in strategies to reduce car use.

The Italian city of Bologna, for example, developed an app that allowed employees of participating companies to track their travel behaviour. Users competed for points by walking, cycling and using public transport, while local businesses offered rewards for their achievements.

This kind of “gamification” of sustainable mobility has attracted considerable interest, and the results from Bologna initially appear very impressive — 73% of users reported using their cars less.

Unlike other studies, however, it was not possible to accurately calculate how much the number of kilometres driven or emissions had actually fallen, so the true impact remains unclear. Skipping one short car trip and ending a long daily commute, for example, would both appear in the data simply as “using the car less.”

Data from apps can be a valuable tool for improving transport planning, but these systems need to be designed very carefully to ensure that they genuinely reduce emissions and support sustainable mobility. The current evidence is mixed. A 2021 study, for example, found that car ownership increased in some cities after services such as Uber and Lyft entered the market — particularly in cities that were already car-dependent — while public transport use declined in wealthier neighbourhoods.

Cities Need to Redefine Themselves

Reducing car dependency is not just a nice idea. It is essential for the future of people and cities around the world. As the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes clear, avoiding the worst impacts of the climate crisis depends on keeping global warming as close as possible to the 1.5°C threshold.

For industrialised countries to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement and prevent irreversible damage, they need to reduce their emissions by 10–12% per year — roughly 1% every month.

Ghent, Belgium

Nevertheless, transport emissions in Europe continued to rise over the long term until the pandemic. Under current policies, estimates suggest that transport emissions in 2040 will be almost the same as they were fifty years ago.

To meet planetary health and climate targets, city governments must make the necessary transition to sustainable mobility: first, reduce the need for mobility itself (see, for example, Paris’s 15-minute city concept); second, shift the remaining mobility needs from cars to active and public transport wherever possible; and finally, transition the remaining cars to zero-emission vehicles.

Fast, Radical and Fair

This transformation must be fast and fair: city leaders and civil society need to engage residents in order to build political legitimacy and public support for these changes. Without broad public support for reducing car use, the EU’s commitment to creating 100 climate-neutral cities in Europe by 2030 seems a very distant goal.

Radically reducing car use will make cities better places to live — and it is possible. A 2020 study showed that it is possible to provide a decent standard of living for the projected 10 billion people on the planet while using 60% less energy than today. To achieve this, however, wealthy countries would need to build three times as much public transport infrastructure as they currently have, while each person would need to limit their annual travel to 5,000 kilometres in dense cities and 15,000 kilometres in more dispersed areas.

Everyone who lives and works in cities will feel the positive effects of reducing car use through more pleasant public spaces. As a journalist visiting the Belgian city of Ghent after cars were partially excluded from the city centre described it in 2020: Cities need to transform and reshape themselves so that what is possible matches what is necessary. At the heart of this process, guided by better evidence about what works, they need to make greater efforts to break free from car dependency.

Do you like what we do at AutoMat? Support us and feed AutoMat with any amount. Thank you!