Journal of Urban Design

ISSN: 1357-4809 (Print) 1469-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20

Why cities need to take road space from cars - and

how this could be done

Stefan Gössling

To cite this article: Stefan Gössling (2020): Why cities need to take road space from cars - and
how this could be done, Journal of Urban Design, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2020.1727318

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2020.1727318

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 18 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 527

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjud20
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2020.1727318

Why cities need to take road space from cars - and how this
could be done
Stefan Gössling
Western Norway Research Institute, Sogndal, Norway; T3Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

ABSTRACT
Cities need to become more liveable. Urban transport systems have
great importance in achieving this goal. Currently, cities are domi-
nated by individual motorized transport with associated problems of
air pollution, congestion, noise and traffic injuries. This paper argues
that the redistribution of space is key in achieving modal split change
and the greening of urban environments. It holds that taking road
space from cars is justified from social, health, environmental and
economic viewpoints. Yet, any change in urban transport cultures
has to consider the automobile, which has instrumental as well as
symbolic and affective functions. City planners are advised never to
argue against the car, and to frame change in ways that reduces
resistance by drivers and automotive lobbies.

A few years ago, Delbosc and Currie (2013) observed that levels of driving licensure were
falling in many industrialized countries, raising the prospect of a decline in car attachment
among young adults. Indeed, a turn from automobile dependence in cities seemed in
reach (Kenworthy and Laube 1996), prompting authors to announce ‘peak car’ (Newman
and Kenworthy 2011). Perhaps this notion was premature, however, as there is much
evidence that car numbers continue to grow. The estimate is that there are now more
than 1 billion passenger cars in the world (OICA 2020), many of them employed in cities.
For example, Yang et al. (2017) find a rapid increase in private car numbers in cities in
China, with the fastest growth in the largest cities. Vehicles have also gained in size and
weight, as sports utility vehicles (SUV) are becoming increasingly more common. The
International Energy Agency (IEA 2019) observes that SUVs now represent close to 40% of
all cars in the world, pointing out that SUV preferences undermine climate mitigation
goals. Motorized individual transport is also closely associated with other traffic-related
problems, such as (severe) injuries and fatalities, air pollution, congestion, noise, and
urban heat effects, all questioning efforts to make cities more liveable. Developments
seem to point at two major issues for urban transport planners. The first is that the car
competes for space with other transport modes. The second is that transport system
change within cities is often hampered by commuters using private cars to move in urban
areas. Urban planners and politicians throughout the world are confronted with the
challenge of disentangling transport needs and calls for more liveable cities.

CONTACT Stefan Gössling sgo@vestforsk.no

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med-
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 S. GÖSSLING

Embattled urban transport infrastructures

In spite of growing pressure on urban space, many cities continue to accommodate car
growth, building additional roads and parking capacity on the basis of predict and provide
principles (Hutton 2013). Progressive cities have realized that there is a need to reduce car
numbers, and devised strategies to make car ownership costlier, or alternative transport
modes more attractive. For example, in Dutch cities, annual residential parking costs of
€1,000 significantly increase the cost of car ownership (Ostermeijer, Koster, and van
Ommeren 2019). Congestion charges have been introduced in cities such as London or
Stockholm (Börjesson et al. 2012; Prud’Homme and Bocarejo 2005). Car use is already
restricted in many urban environments in Europe, and cities all over the world have
announced plans to reduce car numbers (Nieuwenhuijsen and Khreis 2016). More far-
reaching urban planning includes Barcelona’s car-free superblocks (Rueda 2019). Elsewhere,
public transport systems are transformed into mobility as a service (Hirschhorn et al. 2019).
While these are promising examples of strategies to pro-actively reduce car-reliance, more
systematic approaches to reduce vehicle numbers are rare. A key reason may be that
restrictions imposed on cars are regularly met with fierce resistance, even when associated
with visions of more desirable urban transport futures, or measurable proof of cities becoming
more liveable. One question in particular is raised repeatedly by automotive groups and
drivers: is it fair to sanction private cars?
‘Fairness’ would seem to be an issue related to space distribution (Nello-Deakin 2019).
Yet, in virtually all cities, transport infrastructure is to a considerable extent devoted to the
car. This is problematic because the private car is the most space-intense transport mode.
As Nello-Deakin (2019) illustrates, a parked car requires at least three times more space
than public transport, and ten times more than the bicycle. When a car is driven at 50 km/
h, it requires 70 times more space than a cyclist or pedestrian, highlighting the impor-
tance of discussing space as a function of speed.
Apart from its space requirements, the car also contributes to more air pollution, injuries
and noise than other transport modes. This argument can be made in economic terms, with
estimates for the European Union that a car causes an average social cost of €0.11 per rider
per km that is not covered by the taxes, duties or fees paid by its owner (Gössling et al. 2019).
For active transportation, the opposite case can be made, as cycling and walking reduce the
economic burden of health insurance or sick leave days. This social benefit is €0.18 per km
cycled, and €0.37 per km walked (ibid.). Growing evidence also suggests that both active
transport and green spaces are associated with better mental health (Chekroud et al. 2018;
Dadvand et al. 2016). More liveable and sustainable cities would thus have higher shares of
active transport, lower average speeds, and more green areas.

The psychology of the car

In light of these finding, allocating more space to non-car transportation should be an
obvious goal for urban planners. Nello-Deakin (2019, 712) comes to the same conclusion in
principle, suggesting that the redistribution of road space should follow ‘considerations as
to what type of cities we want to live in’. However, he goes on to argue that the ‘carving up’
roads is not necessarily the best option forward; leaving open the question regarding the
alternatives. Clearly, the current allocation of urban road space is unfair and inefficient from
 JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 3

social, health, environmental, and economic viewpoints. It may even be argued that to
ignore the negative externalities of the automotive system is to accept that urban transport
systems will become increasingly less liveable – and costlier in economic terms. The
question, in other words, is not whether urban transport systems need to change (and
whether this is fair), it is how to change these in ways that are transformative, yet not socially
disruptive. Specifically, this means that interventions need to be designed in ways that do
not result in significant resistance. As automotive lobbies watch closely over the concessions
made to other transport modes, redistributing road space is difficult: Infringing on parking
opportunities or allocating transport infrastructure to modes other than the car is likely to
result in backlash (Gössling and Cohen 2014).
To change automotive systems consequently requires an understanding of the functions
of the car, which are only partially instrumental, in the sense that a car is needed to transport
a person from one location to another. All too often, traffic planners overlook the symbolic
and affective dimensions of car use (Steg 2005). The car has important symbolic value in
communicating social status. It has affective functions in dealing with fears, anxieties and
phobias; in expressing power, dominance, control, anger and contempt; or in taking
revenge, rebelling or escaping. The automobile is a means of socializing with family and
friends, or finding community in car cultures. Cars constitute highly personalized spaces,
and they have functions related to feeling protected and safe. Bauman (2007) argued that
SUV number growth in the USA reflected fears of an outside environment perceived as
dangerous. Indeed, it has been observed that car advertising goes to great lengths to
portray the world as a dangerous place, in which little trust can be placed in government
(Gössling 2017). Large, powerful cars offering superior viewing positions address such
worries. Not surprisingly then, interventions against the car represent personal threats
because they interfere with psychological needs, such as to feel safe and secure.
Yet, transport behaviour is to a significant degree based on habit (Gärling and Axhausen
2003), and interventions to restrict automobility are often successful. As an example, the
Stockholm congestion charge significantly reduced car numbers. Subsequent research
sought to identify the changes in transport behaviour that had resulted out of the charge,
finding that travellers claimed to not have changed behaviour (Eliasson 2014). This suggests
that a significant share of car traffic is superfluous or habit-based, specifically in cities with
efficient public transport systems. Results also show that public opinion can sway. In
Stockholm, support of congestion charges increased significantly after their introduction
(Schuitema, Steg, and Forward 2010). These findings aside, it is clear that the transformation
of the automotive system will face significant resistance. The implementation of new
transport cultures will require social norm change (views regarding the desirability of the
car), and the dissolving of driver-vehicle bonds on the level of the individual. This is difficult
to achieve because transport system change undermines instrumental, symbolic, and
affective car functions, and city planners and politicians are well advised to strategically
consider how urban transport transformations can be implemented.

Changing transport cultures

Several insights emerge from the above discussion. First of all, where no transport
alternatives exist, changing transport cultures is impossible. Interventions that make it
more difficult to carry out specific trips will result in negative, emotionally charged
4 S. GÖSSLING

responses. It is thus paramount for city planners to provide alternatives to the car that are
comparable in terms of cost and comfort. Approaches will have to be very different in
North America, Europe, or other parts of the world, also because options vary. Ride hailing
or sharing systems, for example, are much more advanced in North America, while
European cities are denser, and more suitable for a transition to active transport.
Second, perceptions of ‘cost and comfort’ can be influenced by communication strategies.
Evidence suggests that city planners often ignore the importance of communication, even
though this is possibly the most central element of transport system change.
Importantly, attempts to rationally explain car restrictions will rarely be successful. The first
rule of any communication strategy is thus to never argue against the car, directly or indirectly.
As an example, Copenhagen’s successful transformation into a cycle city was based on
a positive communication strategy that never even mentioned motorized vehicles or envir-
onmental challenges such as climate change (Gössling 2013). Instead, it focused on bicycle
benefits, such as greater average speeds and better health. It framed ‘the Copenhagener’, an
aspirational identity, as someone who is riding a bike. Very significant investments in bicycle
infrastructure (€40 per person per year) were justified on the basis of cost-benefit analyses
showing that each km driven represents a cost, while each km cycled is a benefit to society.
Copenhagen illustrates the importance of positive communication strategies focused on
benefits, with the more general goal of transport culture identity change.
These insights can be applied to wider city contexts. For example, given that conges-
tion is a tangible problem in most cities, and one that is mostly relevant for drivers,
communication strategies can have a starting point in the fact that space is limited in
cities. On this basis, it is easy to argue that active transportation is beneficial for car drivers,
because anyone cycling, walking or using public transport reduces pressure on space.
Drivers will accept that in order to increase the interest in active transport, i.e. to make
others refrain from using the car, it is necessary to provide safe and healthy traffic
conditions (Fishman 2016). This is rarely the case in cities, where cyclists are often forced
to share the road with motorized traffic moving at higher speeds, and where active
transport users are exposed to air pollution and noise. The reverse pledge can be made
to cyclists: active transport can be made more attractive by highlighting that the bicycle is
faster than the car. To cycle can also be associated with a significant gain in travel time,
because traffic jams can be bypassed and there is no time loss involved in parking.
Communication strategies can rely on a wide range of other elements to establish the
importance of transport system change. The reclassification of curbside parking for car
sharing – i.e. the removing of parking opportunities – can be based on the argument that
one shared car makes ten owned cars redundant (hence creating space), while also entailing
a lower cost of car use. Bicyclists can be presented as healthier persons, an appeal to personal
aspirations of being healthy. To adjust speeds downwards would seem more difficult, but
even here, it is possible to argue out of the driver’s perspective: under congested road
conditions, speeds around 30–40 km/h maximize the flow of cars (Hutton 2013).
Both rational and emotional arguments can be used to make non-car transportation
more attractive and to justify interventions that might otherwise be perceived as directed
‘against’ the car. At the same time, it is important to also make driving less comfortable, as
transport systems are always in equilibrium (Mogridge et al. 1987). In other words, traffic
participants will compare their options, and it is thus important to restrict vehicle use
 JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 5

indirectly. For example, cities can follow up closely on laws regarding parking restrictions
or speed limits, and fine offenders.
With the emergence of e-scooters in cities, there is also an entirely new argument for
city planners to redistribute space (Gössling 2020). Even if it is as yet unclear which trips
e-scooters replace – ideally those otherwise made by motorized transport -, they require
space. This represents an opportunity for city planners to devote more space to alter-
native transportation. In European cities, where streets are narrow and congested, it is
technically easy and inexpensive to transform entire roads into micromobility streets. This
will vastly increase safety perceptions, and make it much more attractive to walk, cycle or
use electric transport modes such as e-scooters. Car drivers will also welcome such
a separation of traffic, which could be a starting point for the remodelling of cities on
active transport, with a considerably lower demand for road space, and the overall goal to
create networks of micromobility streets that cannot be used by vehicles.
As this discussion highlights, the transformation of urban transport systems could rest on
three elements: viable alternative transport offers for rural/suburban commuters and day
visitors to reach city centres; investments in infrastructure encouraging active transport within
the city, possibly on the basis of a network of micromobility streets devoted exclusively to
cyclists, pedestrians and e-scooters; and communication strategies framing urban transport
system change in ways that address driver concerns. System change appears feasible because
of exogenous and endogenous pressure, and niche innovations such as e-scooters and
e-bikes facilitating change (Geels et al. 2017). Urban transport change is at hand.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID
Stefan Gössling http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0505-9207

References
Bauman, Z. 2007. Liquid Times. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Börjesson, M., J. Eliasson, M. B. Hugosson, and K. Brundell-Freij. 2012. “The Stockholm Congestion
Charges—5 Years On. Effects, Acceptability and Lessons Learnt.” Transport Policy 20: 1–12.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.11.001.
Chekroud, S. R., R. Gueorguieva, A. B. Zheutlin, M. Paulus, H. M. Krumholz, J. H. Krystal, and
A. M. Chekroud. 2018. “Association between Physical Exercise and Mental Health in 1· 2 Million
Individuals in the USA between 2011 and 2015: A Cross-sectional Study.” The Lancet Psychiatry 5
(9): 739–746. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30227-X.
Dadvand, P., X. Bartoll, X. Basagaña, A. Dalmau-Bueno, D. Martinez, A. Ambros, . . .
M. J. Nieuwenhuijsen. 2016. “Green Spaces and General Health: Roles of Mental Health Status,
Social Support, and Physical Activity.” Environment International 91: 161–167. doi:10.1016/j.
envint.2016.02.029.
Delbosc, A., and G. Currie. 2013. “Causes of Youth Licensing Decline: A Synthesis of Evidence.”
Transport Reviews 33 (3): 271–290. doi:10.1080/01441647.2013.801929.
Eliasson, J. 2014. “The Role of Attitude Structures, Direct Experience and Reframing for the Success
of Congestion Pricing.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 67: 81–95.
6 S. GÖSSLING

Fishman, E. 2016. “Cycling as Transport.” Transport Reviews 36 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1080/

01441647.2015.1114271.
Gärling, T., and K. W. Axhausen. 2003. “Introduction: Habitual Travel Choice.” Transportation 30 (1).
1–11.
Geels, F. W., B. K. Sovacool, T. Schwanen, and S. Sorrell. 2017. “Sociotechnical Transitions for Deep
Decarbonization.” Science 357 (6357): 1242–1244. doi:10.1126/science.aao3760.
Gössling, S. 2013. “Urban Transport Transitions: Copenhagen, City of Cyclists.” Journal of Transport
Geography 33: 196–206. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.10.013.
Gössling, S. 2017. The Psychology of the Car: Automobile Admiration, Attachment, and Addiction.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gössling, S. 2020. “Integrating E-scooters in Urban Transportation: Problems, Policies, and the
Prospect of System Change.” Transportation Research Part D 79: 102230. doi:10.1016/j.
trd.2020.102230.
Gössling, S., A. Choi, K. Dekker, and D. Metzler. 2019. “The Social Cost of Automobility, Cycling and
Walking in the European Union.” Ecological Economics 158: 65–74.
Gössling, S., and S. Cohen. 2014. “Why Sustainable Transport Policies Will Fail: EU Climate Policy in
the Light of Transport Taboos.” Journal of Transport Geography 39: 197–207.
Hirschhorn, F., A. Paulsson, C. H. Sørensen, and W. Veeneman. 2019. “Public Transport Regimes and
Mobility as a Service: Governance Approaches in Amsterdam, Birmingham, and Helsinki.”
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 130: 178–191.
Hutton, B. 2013. Planning Sustainable Transport. London: Routledge.
IEA. 2019. “Growing Preference for SUVs Challenges Emissions Reductions in Passenger Car Market.”
Accessed 11 January 2020. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/growing-preference-for-suvs-
challenges-emissions-reductions-in-passenger-car-market
Kenworthy, J. R., and F. B. Laube. 1996. “Automobile Dependence in Cities: An International
Comparison of Urban Transport and Land Use Patterns with Implications for Sustainability.”
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16 (4–6): 279–308.
Mogridge, M. J. H., D. J. Holden, J. Bird, and G. C. Terzis. 1987. “The Downs/Thomson Paradox and the
Transportation Planning Process.” International Journal of Transport Economics 14: 283–311.
Nello-Deakin, S. 2019. “Is There Such a Thing as a ‘Fair’ Distribution of Road Space?.” Journal of Urban
Design 24 (5): 698–714.
Newman, P., and J. Kenworthy. 2011. “‘Peak Car Use’: Understanding the Demise of Automobile
Dependence.” World Transport Policy & Practice 17 (2): 31–42.
Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., and H. Khreis. 2016. “Car Free Cities: Pathway to Healthy Urban Living.”
Environment International 94: 251–262.
OICA (Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d’Automobiles). 2020. “Motorization Rate
2015.” Accessed 17 January 2020. http://www.oica.net/category/vehicles-in-use/
Ostermeijer, F., H. R. A. Koster, and J. van Ommeren. 2019. “Residential Parking Costs and Car
Ownership: Implications for Parking Policy and Automated Vehicles.” Regional Science and
Urban Economics 77: 276–288.
Prud’Homme, R., and J. P. Bocarejo. 2005. “The London Congestion Charge: A Tentative Economic
Appraisal.” Transport Policy 12 (3): 279–287.
Rueda, S. 2019. “Superblocks for the Design of New Cities and Renovation of Existing Ones:
Barcelona’s Case.” In Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning, edited by
M. Nieuwenhuijsen and H. Khreis, 135–153. Berlin: Springer.
Schuitema, G., L. Steg, and S. Forward. 2010. “Explaining Differences in Acceptability before and
Acceptance after the Implementation of a Congestion Charge in Stockholm.” Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44 (2): 99–109.
Steg, L. 2005. “Car Use: Lust and Must. Instrumental, Symbolic and Affective Motives for Car Use.”
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39 (2–3): 147–162.
Yang, Z., P. Jia, W. Liu, and H. Yin. 2017. “Car Ownership and Urban Development in Chinese cities:
A Panel Data Analysis.” Journal of Transport Geography 58: 127–134.