Why not just reduce travel by car?

The usual approach advocated by those who want less travel by car is to improve public transport. This may be seen as a politically acceptable way of being environmentally responsible whilst not losing votes by being seen to be anti-car.

It is debatable whether better public transport does reduce travel by car. It may do at first but in the end the effect is to increase the total amount of travel by all modes. The underlying “rule” is that the more travel opportunities there are, the more travel there will be.

For many years the notion of a “balanced” approach to transport policies has been advocated, using “carrots and sticks” to shift travel from cars to public transport. Better public transport and worse facilities for cars. But in practice this was only ever applied to travel to town centres, with the inevitable consequence that out-of-town-centre locations for shopping and business were developed, with access to these locations by car then being relatively easier than by public transport.

Historically it was the development of public transport, especially trams and railways, which enabled urban dispersal to occur and created travel patterns that increase car travel. Today, many daily commuters travel huge distances by train, often for personal economic reasons – maybe it is cheaper for them to travel such distances because housing costs are reduced. Moreover, present ideas for the expansion of high-speed rail systems will increase this kind of travel, with Trans-European commuting, to work, business and second homes in prospect.

If travel by public transport is accommodated the dispersed patterns of day-to-day life will be maintained and develop as travel speeds increase and journey times decrease.

The current notion underlying transport planning, to make public transport a viable alternative to the car may be feasible, if public money is available, for corridors of existing or potential mass movement. But the dispersed patterns of living it accommodates and creates will mean that cars will be used for non-corridor movements.

Conversely to current thinking, why not reduce the opportunities for all kinds of travel? As a result there will be a gradual shift of where people choose to live, closer to the urban and/or rural amenities and services they want to get to. Travel patterns will gradually change, with associated life-styles. This change may take generations, but this is not unusual – think of the ways that personal life-styles were changed in the past 200 years as travel opportunities increased.

Introduction

I believe that the only answer to the global ecological and economic problems we all now face is for there to be LESS TRAVEL.

There has to be LESS TRAVEL in all kinds of mechanised vehicles. Be they private cars or public transport systems.

This, my first blog, explores this belief, how it could come about and if it does how our world would change for the better.

Throughout history transport systems have moulded human behaviour, the development of cities and the markets which serve them . Transport systems and consequent travel opportunities which have been expanding at an ever increasing rate. What would happen if this development process were to be reversed? I believe it would save the world.

I am just beginning to develop this belief into specific ideas for local, national and global transport policies and I invite you readers to help me. If you believe as I do, please take my ideas: pull them pieces, add to them, do whatever you think will help to create local, national and global actions to reduce all kinds of travel.

If you don't believe that less travel is the answer, it is you I have to convince, so please do keep an eye on this blog.