Convenient town centre housing in every town

Every town in England could have a supply of new housing conveniently located for shops, restaurants and other amenities. With partners, Transport for New Homes is exploring how swathes of land given over to parking could be put to better use.

The availability of car parking in our towns is a major determinant of how people get around. Too much parking induces car trips and reduces bus patronage, threatening the viability of bus routes. Land given over to parking in town centres makes the urban environment hostile to walking and cycling.

Patterns of consumption and mobility are changing. Many local authorities are discovering their town centre car parks are underused and are failing to break even. This presents an opportunity to release some of this land for housing and reduce the need to build on greenfield far from towns and cities.

Town centre car park land is typically conveniently located near trip generators such as shops and restaurants. This presents the opportunity to replace car-centred urban design with convenient car free living. Housing built on these sites will contribute to reduced need for parking.

We will be looking for examples of local authorities who have converted underused parking to housing and sharing best practice. This project will promote relevant policies at local and national level.

Do you know of a town centre car park that has been successfully converted to housing? Do you have a car park near you that would be better as homes?

Site visits at a retail park in Blanchardstown and an industrial estate in Neilstown mightn't sound like the makings of a pleasant morning out of the office, but today was a perfect day for the bike and I was able to take in both site visits and enjoy a cycle through the Phoenix Park and along the Grand Canal, as well as a short stop for lunch in Chapelizod.

Is it really planning when the Treasury decides if a new station opens?

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, published on 11 March 2025, introduces strategic planning to all of England. We think this a positive step that we have called for over many years, but we have some ideas about how this could work better in practice.

All strategic plans must be accompanied by a strategic transport plan

One of the things we’ve identified going wrong with planning of new homes is the choice of location. We think planning over a wider area, taking into account existing transport and trip generators like employment, is a way to pick better sites.

We know this system works well in London where the London Plan spatial strategy is produced in lockstep with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Improvement in transport gets better matched to new housing as a result.

Funding for sustainable transport still needs to be resolved

The reforms leave out the question of funding for infrastructure. The Government has made some promises about public transport and local amenities. It looks like the new system is very much like the old system in terms of what gets built. Is it really planning if the Treasury makes these decisions on a case-by-case, station-by-station, basis?

We know from our research that the Housing Infrastructure Fund, intended to unlock housing, and Section 106 contributions from developers have failed to provide sustainable transport. Some direction to Homes England to prioritise sustainable transport would help here.

But developers and local authorities might like a bit more certainty about funding. Many areas of the country are still not charging a Community Infrastructure Levy which would provide a fixed charge based on size of development and provide income for wide-area strategic projects.

Not big enough to be strategic?

The bill introduces strategic planning boards for areas of the country not yet part of a devolution settlement. The practical effect this will have is it will be possible to pick better locations for housing over a wider functional region and more funding can be pooled for wide-area sustainable transport.

Early indications about potential strategic authorities coming out of the reform however show that some areas will be too small to be effective and convenient for this kind of strategic planning. We think in some cases it will be more appropriate to create strategic planning boards for several, smaller combined authorities in order to create strategic plans over wider areas. The Bill should enable this where appropriate.

This new focus on strategic planning is definitely a positive step forward with the potential to improve decisions about where new homes are located. But as one problem is solved, another has not gone away. Sustainable development will not happen unless certainty around funding of new infrastructure is provided.

It is amazing how consistent the news about the not-so-good impacts of the way we use automobiles is. Here's another report on life cycle costs.

https://www.eta.co.uk/news/the-hidden-price-of-car-dependency-why-walking-and-cycling-pay-dividends-for-society?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=weekly

H/T Aarne Granlund, https://bsky.app/profile/aarnegranlund.bsky.social/post/3lkftbmcuzk2d

Three recommendations for planning reform

These recommendations come from our most recent report What is being built in 2025?

1. Transit-oriented development serving residents from day one of occupation

We believe, above all else, that transit-oriented development is the way forward

This means new towns planned around better public transport, connected with metros, tram systems and comprehensive bus networks. There are a number of expanding city regions in England that consist of an urban centre and a hinterland of fast-growing satellite towns and new outer suburbs.

These places need to be connected by building public transport infrastructure and coordinating the construction of new homes with this. Public transport must be available to residents on day one

2. New homes must be built in better locations

The planning system must encourage building in more sustainable locations

Local authority housing targets and developer-led choices of where to build new homes are central to our current planning system. Decisions of where we build new homes needs a more evidence-based approach. The site selection process must be driven by strategic plans that go across local authority boundaries with a public transport accessibility test to discover where is best to build. Places must be selected that will work with new transport infrastructure investment to promote regeneration, economic growth and good access to services.

The process of plan making enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework needs to be revised to make this kind of wider area planning possible.

3. Deliverable masterplans that create delightful walkable places

Larger sites for housing need a masterplan and funding to deliver it

Mayoral strategic authorities must be able to govern, manage, plan and develop the rail and bus networks in order to integrate them with new homes. But just as important, the layout, density and type of housing in a new area must be planned by local authorities so it best makes use of these transport networks.

Transport and land use planning must be tied together at the local authority level. The current planning system needs to change to make this new emphasis possible. Adequate funding must be made available to fully realise masterplans for delightful walkable places.

This could have been a shared garden or a park or a playground or an urban forrest or a pond or a meeting place.

Instead it’s a parking.

‘Jigsaw puzzle’ developments are creating car-dependent estates

Our latest report, out today, has confirmed what we had long suspected; new housing estates being built in England resemble a jigsaw puzzle with some of the most important pieces missing – the stations, the mass transit systems and on-site community provision and services.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, reveals that housing targets aimed at rural parts of the country and a developer-led choice of location are creating car-dependent estates far away from major urban areas and isolated from good public transport, and that car-based suburban sprawl is now the default model of development.

It concludes that unless we start to build differently we will end up with more and more of this ‘doughnut effect’, whereby everything ends up on out of town greenfield sites whilst brownfield sites lie unbuilt and derelict, and high streets are dying.

What is being built in 2025? In search of the station, looked at nearly 40 new housing developments, including four in Europe (Germany and Sweden), and explored a number of themes, including: whether the development was ultimately designed around the car; traffic generation and its consequences; public transport connections including bus, local rail and trams; and whether there are a range of amenities to walk or cycle to. The report also includes a section on why the planning system fails to deliver sustainable transport.

Volunteers visited each development and looked at the type and mix of housing, transport links, layout and on-site facilities, and concluded that nearly every greenfield development was oriented around the car. None of the large-scale housing greenfield developments visited for the report were on metro or tram systems, buses were in many cases infrequent or insufficient and went to limited destinations, and safe and convenient active travel options did not connect the development to places people wanted to go to. The report only identified one large-scale greenfield development, Poundbury in Dorset, which it considered to be a vibrant ‘self-contained’ community on account of being genuinely mixed use and built from the start for walking rather than driving.

To accomplish a different model of delivering new homes and avoid more car-dependent sprawl, Transport for New Homes makes three recommendations:

• Build transit-oriented developments serving residents from day one of occupation: New developments should be planned around better public transport, connected with metros, tram systems and comprehensive bus networks, available to residents on the day they move in to avoid entrenching car dependency. 
• New homes must be built in better locations: The planning system needs to direct building in more sustainable locations, with decisions on where we build new homes taken with more of an evidence-based approach. Places must be selected that will work with new transport infrastructure and promote regeneration, economic growth and good access to services. A revised National Planning Policy Framework needs to make this kind of wider area planning possible. 
• Deliverable masterplans that create delightful walkable places: Chosen sites for housing need a masterplan designed to deliver walkable places with well connected public transport and the funding to realise the plan. To achieve this, transport and land use planning must be tied together at the local authority level with changes to the current planning system to make this possible.

Car dependency, bad urban design, and public transit sharing space with cars means we can't even do the trolley problem right, anymore.

"Socialism" means having multiple travel options: walking, biking, public transit, car

"Freedom" means having one option: car.

(Seen in the comments to this CNBC video titled "How America Got Hooked on Cars")

https://youtu.be/egD1ZoRrpVw?si=UfjuEgGc70MST09K

If you are voting in #Werribee byelection today, the major parties ignored you on addressing #publictransport in #Melbourne’s western suburbs. #springst #cardependency
https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2025/02/by-election-forum-calls-for-better.html

Where is the walking and cycling infrastructure ?
Let's redirect funding from roads to walking and cycling infrastructure.

"Australia spends $714 per person on roads every year – but just 90 cents goes to walking, wheeling and cycling. Unfortunately, that’s how much the Australian government has invested per person annually on walking, wheeling and cycling over the past 20 years."

"As a result of this over-investment in car road-building, Australia has the smallest number of walking trips of 15 comparable countries across Western Europe and North America. Many Australians are dependent on cars because they have no other choice in terms of transport options."

"Road use is inherently dangerous – in Australia last year, more than 1,300 people died on our roads, which is more than 25 people a week."

"The typical Australian household spends 17% of its income on transport – with car ownership making up 92.5% of that figure, compared to 7.5% on public transport."

"A major source of all emissions in Australia are from driving."

"Redirecting funding from the current road budget makes the most sense, because getting more people walking, wheeling and cycling eases pressure on the transport system (think of school holiday traffic). "

"When it comes to transport, the saying goes “we get what we build” – so if we build more roads, we get more people driving. If we build paths, we get more people walking and cycling short journeys and our roads are less congested."
>>
https://theconversation.com/australia-spends-714-per-person-on-roads-every-year-but-just-90-cents-goes-to-walking-wheeling-and-cycling-247902

The Australian and NSW governments are funding the $2,200,000,000 ($2.2 billion), 14-kilometre Coffs Harbour bypass project. Cars will save 12 minutes. Imagine the walking and cycling infrastructure...
https://www.pacifichighway.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/2023/coffs_harbour_bypass_project_update_june_2023.pdf

https://www.obnovitelne.cz/clanek/3577/perpetuum-mobile-mercedes-benz-vyviji-solarni-lak-ktery-pokryje-veskery-najezd-bezneho-vozu

Trump says he’s going to get rid of America’s “EV mandate.” There isn’t one. But there’s definitely a “car dependency mandate,” and Trump will make it much worse. That’s less choice, less freedom, and worse consequences for all. Via @keawilson.bsky.social in @usa.streetsblog.org #CarDependency

Trump's 'EV Mandate' Does Not ...

Think different?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/17/seoul-cheonggyecheon-motorway-turned-into-a-stream

Oh no there was a big storm, better drag all the debris into the bike lanes! For safety!

Most of the problems people have with snow are really problems with car dependency. Driving is already dangerous on a good day, and even more dangerous on a snowy road.

Eliminate the need to drive, and you eliminate the danger. Walkability and rail transit are the answer.

Interesting point here about the dominant #urbandesign suburban land use style here in smoky #NorthAmerica : single exit SUV-dependent designs introduce a single point of failure in an emergency. The recommended emergency evacuation strategy here was for everyone to rush onto the streets at the same time, shutting down the streets until fire crews could come to bulldoze all of the abandoned vehicles. #disaster #cardependency #waroncars #evacuation https://www.firerescue1.com/wildfire-and-wildland-urban-interface/dozers-push-through-abandoned-cars-as-thousands-flee-from-l-a-wildfire

Buying a car sucks.

I wish it was easier to get what I need in this market of massive expensive vehicles.

I wish it was easier to get what I need in this corner of the US.

I wish I didn't need to be car dependent in my corner of the US and there was robust cycling and public transit options.

I wish so many things were different but here we are, having to buy a car.

Feh.