I hope so. But we will need horses for courses; apt dwellings and density for people who don't want or need a car, work in cities, like walkable amenities etc - these people should be incentivized.... and then the 3 bed with a little garden and driveway English crutch - less ideal for density and land use, but a reality in the market to provide for - and some folks do need to drive to work due to location, shifts etc - and that is fine.
That's the conflict between having well linked housing developments and housing which is secure by design. Cul de sacs are more secure than housing developments with lots of entries and exits for non residents.
aha! the Star Trek world option! - this board never seems bale to grasp that many people want/like to drive. If you don't offer parking you limit potential passengers to those living within a short walking distance.
A big departure from the past is that people just don't like walking any more, whether it's to local amenities or to a bus stop. Unless of course they have a dog on a lead. The car is the default for any journey, however short.
That conflict only arises when the density is low enough and few people are walking around the neighbourhood. In denser areas security is provided not by cul de sacs, but by the social control of lots of people being out and about who can see and intervene if they see something happening (even if they often don't in reality, being in plain sight still reduces the risk of crime). This is also one of the reasons why very high density with tall apartment buildings (more than 7-8 storeys) can also have security challenges if not designed well. Any higher and you can't really see what's going on in the streets below anymore so that social control (looking out the window if you hear something going on outside) can get lost.
I agree for your local shop but imo travel to employment doesn't work like that - Stations have a wide catchment area meaning people have to drive. No one is going to walk 5 miles to get the train when they can drive. It isn't 1832!
The new Chinese HSR stations are generally located out of town and while I imagine they do run shuttle buses, they also are built with substantial car parks and drop off points.
And new estates often have very poor connections to the rest of town - perhaps along roads without pavements or lighting.
Runcorn is a very specific design to encourage bus travel, however, where I live in St Albans (a town where car congestion is endemic) the locality is a group of cul-de-sacs connected to a perimeter road, and a single hourly bus route runs in one direction around that perimeter with no dwelling inside the loop being more than 5 minutes from a bus stop. The bus service is however quite reliable (delayed only by traffc in the centre of town) and also provides a couple of 'commuter diversions' and 'leisure trip services' buses to St Albans City station morning and evening. The walk to the station is otherwise 35-45mins.
This should be addressed through higher quality design, environments, civic pride... not isolation and suspicion. We have to design our futures without the assumption that criminality is inevitable - but can be mitigated through better spaces. We can learn from the bad estates of the past.
This - should not be encouraged. This is public health stuff. Walkable settlements and lifestyles are far more desirable for many ways. This does not mean anti-car or anti-choice, just logic and encouraging modes which help societal objectives more, including air quality, traffic deaths, congestion.
Or feeder bus services could be offered to serve those passengers. Multi storey is of course better, but I would prefer walkable lower storeys with open green spaces that better public health.
People wonder why there’s an obesity crisis…
Nope - most people think the bus is for the lower social orders and a symbol of failure. I KNOW many here don't feel that but real people DO. Even free most wouldn't bother. The train works really well for long distance commutes or into a local centre of employment. It doesn't compare well with the car for relatively short journeys. The on;y ay to get peopel on t othe train is to offer a cheap, relaible service with free or very low cost parking.
I agree, but the majority wouldn't be seen dead on a bus, even those entitled to free bus passes - especially those living in the owner-occupied sprawl surrounding towns which DO have railway stations. Let's see how everyone gets to Beaulieu - or the new improved opportunities in Bicester Village. I guess it won't be by bus, bicycle or shanks' pony. The cycle paths I inspected recently in Bicester were unused and covered in vegetation and the rabbit warrens impenetrable to buses.
They can pay for expensive parking if they’re up themselves enough to not take the bus. Guaranteed connections to the train such as in Switzerland should be envisioned to make best use of the resources at hand.
Its a bit late for that, by coincidence I rode my motorbike past the site of the proposed Tavistock Station yesterday. https://www.bovishomes.co.uk/developments/devon/the-tors-tavistock its the tree belt at the bottom of this completed new estate in picture 2/12
Reducing car usage while maintaining car ownership is difficult because.
Theres absolutely no mention of the proposed railway in the sales material. The transport priority is the easy access to the M5 at Exeter via the A30. A good proportion of the properties are already occupied.
This may well be the theory, but in my experience this is not quite how it works in practice.
I am one of those people who's moved from the city out to the countryside. The move was made with our eyes wide open about the transport implications - my wife and I grew up in a similar small town to where we now live.
