|
|
|
|
Automobile dependency
|
| |
|
| |
Automobile dependency is a term coined by Professors Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy to capture the predicament of most cities in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, large cities in Europe.
Automobile dependency implies that cities where automobiles are the predominant transport not only deny their residents freedom of choice about the way they live and move around the city, but that the culture of automobile use has produced a kind of addiction to them.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Automobile dependency' Start a new discussion about 'Automobile dependency' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Automobile dependency is a term coined by Professors Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy to capture the predicament of most cities in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, large cities in Europe.
Automobile dependency implies that cities where automobiles are the predominant transport not only deny their residents freedom of choice about the way they live and move around the city, but that the culture of automobile use has produced a kind of addiction to them. The analogy is made with addictions to harmful substances and activities because of the well-known law of diminishing returns in relation to increasing use or participation - the more that is used, the less of the desired effect is gained until a point is reached where the substance or activity has to be maintained to remain 'normal' - a state of dependency.
When it comes to automobile use, there is a spiralling effect where traffic congestion produces the 'demand' for more and bigger roads and removal of 'impediments' to traffic flow, such as pedestrians, signalised crossings, traffic lights, cyclists, and various forms of street-based public transit such as streetcars (trams). These measures make automobile use more pleasurable and advantageous at the expense of other modes of transport, so greater traffic volumes are induced. Additionally, the urban design of cities adjusts to the needs of automobiles in terms of movement and space. Buildings are replaced by parking lots. Open air shopping streets are replaced by enclosed malls. Walk-in banks and fast-food stores are replaced by drive-in versions of themselves that are inconveniently located for pedestrians. Town centres with a mixture of commercial, retail and entertainment functions are replaced by single-function business parks, 'category-killer' retail boxes and 'multiplex' entertainment complexes, each surrounded by large tracts of parking.
These kinds of environments require automobiles to access them, thus inducing even more traffic onto the increased roadspace. This results in congestion, and the cycle above continues. Roads get ever bigger, consuming ever greater tracts of land previously used for housing, manufacturing and other socially useful purposes. Public transit becomes less and less viable and socially stigmatised, eventually becoming a minority form of transportation. People's choices and freedoms to live functional lives without the use of the car are greatly reduced. Such cities are automobile dependent.
Automobile dependency is seen primarily as an issue of environmental sustainability due to the consumption of non-renewable resources and production of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. It is also an issue of social and cultural sustainability. Like gated communities, the private automobile produces physical separation between people and reduces the opportunities for unstructured social encounter that is a significant aspect of social capital formation and maintenance in urban environments.
There are a number of planning and design approaches to redressing automobile dependency, known variously as New Urbanism, Transit-oriented development, and Smart growth. Most of these approaches focus on the physical urban design, urban density and landuse zoning of cities. Dr. Paul Mees, a transport planning academic formerly at the University of Melbourne argues that investment in good public transit, centralised management by the public sector and appropriate policy priorities are more significant than issues of urban form and density.
There are of course many who argue against a number of the details within any of the complex arguments related to this topic, particularly relationships between urban density and transit viability, or the nature of viable alternatives to automobiles that provide the same degree of flexibility and speed. There is also research into the future of automobility itself in terms of shared usage, size reduction, roadspace management and more sustainable fuel sources.
See also
|
| |
|
|
