Postscript - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 436

The provision of facilities offering the choice of car use for particular journeys
(plus of course for walking, cycling and public transport as appropriate to the
location) provides the context in which it is possible to encourage lower levels of
private car ownership amongst residents. For those who do not need a car on a day-
to-day basis there is the advantage of only paying for one when it is needed and
being able to select a type of vehicle which is best suited to the journey being made.
Further incentive can be introduced by requiring that a maximum of one private
parking space is provided within the curtilage of each dwelling and that a minimum
(possibly 50%) of the total residents' parking is provided in the form of separately
rented spaces. The aim of this is to ensure that most households have to make a
deliberate decision as to whether to utilise one or more additional rented spaces
(and incur an on-going payment) and, of course, whether to own and run the private
car(s) associated with them.
Whatever amount of residents' parking is provided within a development as a whole
this arrangement ensures that the allocation between individual dwellings is not pre-
determined. Hence the parking space actually used in relation to a particular dwelling
can vary from one set of occupants to the next and a given household may vary its
requirement during its stay according to changing circumstances. If for example one
member did not need a car regularly for a period there would be an incentive for them
to give up their vehicle and space during this time and to consciously rethink their
options when their circumstances changed again.
2) Improving and promoting opportunities for non-car travel for journeys to
work, college and school
Current local policies typically aim at 'modal shift' for work and education-related
journeys in order to reduce the traffic-related problems at peak times and to
complement restrictive parking policies at the destinations concerned. However such
policies imply leaving household cars at home instead which are then available for
travel at all other times.
Increasing opportunities for non-car travel to work etc. should not merely be to
improve traffic conditions at peak times but be designed to remove the need for private
car ownership in order to fulfil these daily travel needs. This then creates a situation
in which the option of people using a mix of rented or shared cars plus other modes for
remaining journeys (as suggested above) becomes attractive, and overall car mileage
per household is reduced. It also opens the way for reduced parking provision and
more efficient space utilisation within residential developments.
Two types of action are suggested to support this, both of which seek to redress
historical anomalies. The first is to secure business support for non-car alternatives;
the second is to improve the context for promoting walking and cycling.
As noted previously the growth in private car ownership has not been accompanied
by any obligation on firms or households to contribute to maintaining the general
standards of public transport service and accessibility. The ensuing spirals result in
more congested traffic and parking conditions on the one hand and fewer, more
expensive bus services on the other. Some firms have responded by moving to
peripheral locations. This may ease conditions for access by car but at the price of
almost complete car dependence and of effectively precluding people without a
car from being employed if they live more than a short distance away. Current best
practice concerning development location, workplace travel plans and developer