- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
New housing development sign.JPGNew housing schemes are forcing people into car dependency, report finds
New housing schemes throughout England are forcing couples and young families to become dependent on cars due to a lack of amenities and sustainable travel options, according to a report from a group that is calling for transport to be put at the heart of planning policy.
The report, from The Transport for New Homes Association, was based on site visits to more than large-scale residential developments built on greenfield sites outside towns and cities or on brownfield sites in urban areas.
Locations visited included Newcastle Great Park, Great Western Park in Didcot, Dickens Heath in Solihull, Bath Riverside and Poundbury in Dorset – the new town on Duchy of Cornwall-owned land championed in the 1980s by Prince Charles and held up, throughout the report, as an example others should follow. Each is profiled in depth here.
Researchers also visited three locations in the Netherlands – the only major European country with a higher population density than England – and one in Sweden to see what was happening there.
They were looking at issues including public transport provision, how easy and attractive it is to walk or cycle, the presence of shops and services, leisure facilities and employment opportunities, and the extent to which the developments are dominated by the car.
The picture they paint is a depressing one, and with a handful of exceptions the opposite of what was depicted in planning documents and marketing materials when it came to the availability of services and the location’s attractiveness as somewhere to live.
The report notes that “for transport, the visions presented” in literature and planning documents “regarding new homes do not show new residents getting into cars and being stuck in traffic, but rather depict people cycling and walking as part of their everyday lives. Bus and rail services are often featured as providing an alternative to the car.”
All too often, the schemes lacked basic facilities such as shops, pubs and cafes or places for people to find employment, with many located next to ring roads or bypasses that cut them off from the towns to which they were built as extensions to.
Typically, green spaces were notable by their absence with instead cars – and, above all, places to park them – dominant. Where there were facilities for cyclists or pedestrians, in many cases these ended at the boundary of the development, meaning there were no viable options for active travel further afield.
The report also highlighted what its authors see as an Americanisation of the planning environment – for example, schemes built close to large retail or leisure parks but which could only be reached by motor vehicle, making the car king.
With many developments marketed on their proximity to major trunk roads – thereby appealing to commuters priced out of urban centres – many are in effect dormitories and lack effective public transport links.
Indeed, analysis of census data highlighted greater than average use of cars to commute for people living in the areas focused on in the report.
One of the report’s researchers, Jenny Raggett, told BBC News: "We were appalled to find so many new housing developments built around the car with residents driving for almost every journey.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45956792
“As those cars head for our towns and cities they clog up existing roads. Commuter times get longer and longer. Car-based living of this kind is not good for our health or quality of life.”
The report has also been backed by Steve Gooding, a director of the RAC Foundation charity. He said: "We need new housing developments with a genuine mix of transport options, which may include the private car but not exclude other ways of getting around.
“It’s not much fun in one of these new estates where there’s nowhere to park out front, so there are cars all over the pavements. You have to ferry your kids everywhere, and then you drive straight into a traffic jam.
“The government has got to think about this properly – we don’t just need new homes anywhere we can put them – we need quality homes. Places like Poundbury show it is possible to get this balance right."
However, a government spokesperson insisted that under revised planning guidance, developers of new schemes must encourage walking, cycling or using public transport, adding that “the rules also make sure that councils put plans in place for the infrastructure needed to support new developments."
The Transport for New Homes Association is funded by the Foundation for Integrated Transport, which says: “We envision a world with a human right to get around without reliance on cars, where people can travel with minimum impact on others and the environment, where barriers to transport justice are removed, and where trains and buses are integrated, and safe and attractive routes are provided for walking and cycling. We fund projects that will help to make this vision a reality.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- David9694 2 min 34 sec ago
Drivers : cyclists should pay Road Tax etc...
- ReflecToes 5 min 3 sec ago
A friend of mine created a rear light called tailgator technologies that has an accelorometer in it to get brighter when you are slowing down. My...
- ErnieC 16 min 4 sec ago
when does armed resistance become genocide?
- Secret_squirrel 18 min 45 sec ago
Is it me or is it a bit weird to have everyone comment but the lady herself? I hope she approved the Team and BC comments.
- stonojnr 28 min 18 sec ago
well keep in mind the county council leading and proposing these active travel changes is Tory. so work that one out.
- Sredlums 1 hour 12 min ago
What I don't understand is what is so hard to understand about the fact that higher/steeper stems bring the handlebars closer to you. If you only...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 58 min ago
I thought the rationale for wearing sunglasses over rather than under the helmet straps was so they could fly off in a crash and not stay around to...
- IanMSpencer 3 hours 55 min ago
I don't think you need have any concern about cycling safety improving with #toxicadi Ashley Neal advocating for us on protected cycle lanes....
- mark1a 4 hours 2 min ago
Surely it's the sensor that is 8K, not the lens?
Add new comment
22 comments
Ours is a prime example of this also, effectively a dormitory for Edinburgh commuters, and yet there is only one direct public transport connection, run by a private company who obviously have an incentive to run the fewest buses possible whilst cashing in on the effective monopoly they have on the route.
Our local council service (Lothian Buses) won't step in as they would effectively have to subsidise the route, which they refuse to do in any instance when there is an alternative provider (i.e. the private monopoly). It's a perfect Catch 22!
But the issue is much, much bigger than that. The private provider (First) actually doesn't deliver a terrible service, it just seems terrible in the context of modern living, i.e. long/irregular hours in the office, baby in nursery as both parents have to work which means constant stress of getting back on time, congested morning traffic means you need to run for the earliest bus possible to avoid sitting in stationary traffic, etc. etc. A provider would need to run buses every 15/30 minutes to allow people the flexibility required. If I could just up and leave the desk at 17:20 every day (and First improved their reliability a wee bit) then I would happily grab the 17:50 from the city centre every evening.
Our way of living needs to change so we can work more flexible (yes, even shorter) hours, childcare provision needs subsidised more, or houses made cheaper, so both parents don't need to work or can afford to cut their hours (although all of these sort of policies are the sorts of thing that would have a politician branded a commie and have doctored pictures of them in front of the Kremlin displayed on the BBC...).
Remote working needs to be pushed and pushed hard by the government, I can do my job perfectly adequately (albeit slightly distractedly) from home with a company laptop. If the government forced developers to contribute to 'remote working' hub type buildings this would move jobs out of the city centre, into the local communities, and probably reduce rush hour congestion by a third at least.
Anyway, rant over. I just think the modern lifestyle is inherently screwed, and no amount of extra bike paths will really help it. It needs a joined up, thought through strategy which as we've seen, is well beyond the abilities of any of our esteemed politic class...
Was re-reading the story. Am I missing something? The Bath Riverside development is about a minute's walk from the centre of Bath. Hardly out-of-town-and-forcing-young-couples-to-buy-a-car...
Today's story has illustrations which clearly show that - once essential parking space has been provided - there is hardly any space left over for space-hungry humans.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6311283/Will-40-000-micro-homes-solve-h...
Obviously, if we would just be less greedy about wanting more than a couple of square metres to actually live on then there would be space for far more cars!
Car dependency has been developing in the UK for decades and is surely not restricted to new developments.
However, it is good that it is finally newsworthy but sadly too late to do anything about for many areas, and other solutions are needed.
The Guardian is reporting today that "More than 2,000 GP surgeries and hospitals in UK are in areas that breach WHO air pollution guidelines"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/25/patients-at-thousand...
And we know the same applies to schools, workplaces and people's homes. And PM2.5s are only one (admittedly worrying) part of the problem.
But it's more important "for the economy" - people claim, with NO evidence - to let cars, vans, lorries and taxis clog up every navigable street. "Sorry kids, but COPD, cancer and a slew of other ailments are the price you will pay for my convenience. Now get outta my way, BEEP BEEP!"
When I see the level of housebuilding & business construction taking place all around Shrewsbury, with little or no thought for pedestrians & cyclists, then unless someone wakes up and actually makes some changes it seems it will only get worse.
I grew up in an area with 8 houses within 100m of each other, the nearest village a couple of miles away and town around 8 miles away.
Fortunately the drink driving laws weren't policed as heavily as now and life went on as normal.
For certain values of “fortunately”.
All these new estates that I've been around seem to have very narrow roads, few garages or off-road parking, so it's the wild west for parking on verges, kerbs, grassed areas etc. presumably it is down to planning requirements to restrict car ownership but without the joined up policy to offer an alternative?
What a nightmare environment to live in. A combination of poorly thought out public transportation system and amenities zoning, builders who don't care a toss and buyers who just can't get out of their car owning mentality.
This.
Developers don't necessarily despise walking/cycling, so much as they despise anything that doesn't make them money. Councils really need to be beating them up more, but if you dig into the job histories of your local developers and councillors/planning department, there'll be some overlapping careers that a cynic might describe as 'cosy'.
Usually the facilities and infrastructure for alternatives to motor transport are included at the planning stage and are indeed a requirement of the subsequent consents but they never seem to materialise once construction starts. Local Authorities often don't have the desire (nor the financial clout) to enforce compliance.
Like lots of things (affordable housing, say), the developers will usually say anything at all to get the development through planning; but once they've started digging and building they suddenly announce that doing all the stuff they promised they'd do will negatively affect the likely profitability of the site and unless the council lets them renege on their promises well, then, they'll just have to stop working on the site: sorry 'bout that! (CYNICISM=OFF)
Where I used to live in the UK there was a planned development straddling both sides of the main road out of town. As well as the poor (even at this stage!) provision for cycling and walking within the developments, they had proposed linking access by putting a toucan crossing over this main road; a road which was already at capacity at busy times. Putting a crossing there would snarl up the whole town at rush hour, and while I have no issue with people who choose to sit in cars sitting in cars, it was a good example of proper provision not having been considered until the final stages and this being thrown in as a "this'll do" option, rather than anything properly thought out.
And here I am in Munich, where developments of this sort all have underground parking to eliminate the need to clog up the roads.
Great - someone in Munich gloating over all of our (UK's) crappy so-called infrastructure when they've got bike lanes along both sides of every road. I bet you like to get tipsy at Oktoberfest and then laugh and point at teetotallers.
Anyhow, we've got cider here in the West Country which you can't get in Munich (or at least I couldn't find any when I was there on holiday).
Not intending to gloat. It's also very noticeable that, regardless of the claims about cycling modal share and infrastructure, most people have shifted into cars as the temperature has dropped in the last week and probably won't start cycling again until spring.
Also, plenty of one-side only bike lanes. It's just that they are generally full carriageway width...
I was (mostly) kidding.
We went on holiday to Munich last year and really enjoyed ourselves. We were that impressed by the quantity of cycle lanes that we ended up hiring a couple of bikes and spent a day cycling round (we were only a bit wobbly after drinking in the Englischer Garden). Even though neither of us were used to traffic being on the right hand side, we both felt safe and secure and there didn't seem to be any of the conflict between drivers and cyclists that we see in the UK.
There was a good report on parking in new estates a few years back. Shows what a nightmare they are:
http://www.spacetopark.org/tools/download.php?download=Space_to_Park_Rep...
So many new build estates just seem to forget the basic needs for people to walk, cycle or otherwise not use a private car. It's almost as if there is some sort of incentive for the builder to cram as many properties onto the land available and eliminate all non utilised open or public spaces.
I know: its almost as if new build estates are constructed by private companies which wish to maximise their profits, to pay for the bubbly at the shareholder's general meeting...
Anecdote vaguely on-topic: My old office had a car park. City centre location. Car parking so each of the handful of small businesses in the building could just about get two cars on. New block of flats was built on some derelict land behind our car park. Six flats, each potentially occupied by two people. Council planning permission specified that because the new building was so close to the city centre there was to be no car parking provided, as nobody would need it, just a cycle shed. The building was finished, the flats sold, and every bl00dy day after that (until we moved to new premises) there'd be cars from the flats sitting in the office car park... Erm: I'm not sure exactly what my point is - I got lost somewhere in the middle...
(Incidentally, I didn't use the car park myself - used our building's cycle parking (through the front door, down the stairs, along a corridor, in the basement...
)
Was it behind the door that said Beware of the Leopard?
Why yes: yes, it was...
In full and excruciating detail:
Lean bike against wall, up three steps, keyfob open the front door and wedge it with a fire extinguisher so the auto-closer doesn't - er - auto close, carry the bike up, lean against wall while moving fire extinguisher again so door can close, wheel across entrance lobby to door at the back, enter security code to open that, carry bike down about twenty steps with a bend half way down, turn right and along a short corridor, unlock store room, wheel bike in...
Ah, such fun days...
I don't miss them.
(New office has an outside entrance to the basement storage, alarmed and with an outside gate and a door, then straight into the bike shed with sheffield stands mounted into the floor).
This is so true we recently bought a new build and were promised shops and a pub. They have now decided in their wisdom (Persimmon) that these are no longer required.