Moving to Private-Car-Restricted and Mobility-Served Neighborhoods: The Unspectacular Workings of a Progressive Mobility Plan

Abstract

Despite ongoing changes in housing construction around parking requirements, few studies have been undertaken on travel practice and vehicle ownership once homes have been built in line with new requirements and occupied. This study focused on the experience and travel practices of residents in two specific cases involving new requirements in Sweden. It was based on interviews and questionnaires with residents before and after they moved into the two new blocks of apartments. A relatively restricted supply of parking was compensated for with subsidized mobility services for the residents, e.g., car and bike (sharing) clubs. The results indicated a decrease in car ownership in both blocks, as well as a decrease in the frequency of car travel in one of them. There were indications that use of public transport had increased. Our analysis illustrates the roles that parking and mobility services played over time in establishing the residents’ travel habits. The process that shaped the new residents’ car ownership and travel patterns was, in part, quite slow and unspectacular compared with the intentions and expectations of the stakeholders involved as regards to how car ownership and travel habits would change. We discuss a spectrum of everyday life conditions, which together with parking requirements and mobility services can stimulate the growth of urban mobility practices other than those based on private car ownership.

Review of the Effects of Developments with Low Parking Requirements

“…The issue of residential self-selection in relationship to mobility patterns is not always mentioned in the evaluations. Overall, those carried out by researchers more often discuss the issue of self-selection (see e.g., [18,29]). In the case of Florisdorf, 73% of the households did not previously own a car [30], while in Vauban, 81% of the car free households had previously owned a car [31].…”

“…This implies that the main reason for the more sustainable mobility patterns is hard to establish. Johansson et al [29] find that several changes have occurred in the residents' life and that the change in vehicle ownership and mobility patterns is connected to bundled practices. However, access to parking or rather the lack of access to easy and cheap parking can be a contributing factor to go from car owning to being car free [29,34].…”

“…In Viva, those that chose to keep a car solved the parking problem by one of the following: renting or borrowing a parking space within walking distance, parking at a relative's property (often a parent or a child), or parking on the street [34]. Johansson et al [29] find similar solutions. It is thus important to look at the wider geographical area, the on-street parking availability, and not only the specific development project both in the planning phase and the evaluation phase of the project, since parking availability and pricing in the surrounding area might affect the outcome and the development might also result in spill over parking [17].…”

“…Generally, membership in carsharing was higher than in the general population or in the surrounding area. In the studies that interviewed residents, carsharing was, for some respondents, still something new, and there was sometimes a lack of knowledge and confidence about these services [29,34]. Access to carsharing also implied an increase of car use for some individuals [29].…”

“…In the studies that interviewed residents, carsharing was, for some respondents, still something new, and there was sometimes a lack of knowledge and confidence about these services [29,34]. Access to carsharing also implied an increase of car use for some individuals [29]. Johansson et al [29] also suggested looking at a larger area when developing the mobility services for the residents.…”