1

Street network management for better conditions. From a historical analysis to a radical concept H. Monheim 0 Preface 1 Divide et impera. " by lane" separation as a basic principle of motorised 1.1 Consequences for design: linear thinking killed the quality of public space 1.2 Consequences for architecture and land use 2. calming and zones as a first attempt for correction towards a better coexistence in Traffic 2.1 Pedestrian zones as little islands in a friendly surrounding 2.2 and Winkelerf. The influence of Dutch examples on German 2.3 Systematic 30 km h limit strategies 2.4 Coexistence strategies for and bus lanes 3. Models for a systematically separation of Traffic modes in "new town areas" 3.1 Horizontal "street by street" separation in a small scale 3.2 Complete horizontal "street by street" separation in new town areas 3.3 Vertical "level by level" separation in new town or new business areas 3.4 "Time Sharing" separation 4. Missing ambition for a general change. Why not ban the private car generally and domesticate the remaining motorized traffic electronically? 4.1 Car free centre 4.2 Better use of carriageways: Cities must develop a repertoire. 4.3 as the basis of modern mobility 4.4 Car free health resorts or tourist towns 4.5 Car free housing areas - restrictive management 4.6 Demotorization as a general strategy 4.7 Modern telematic: a strong support for reinforcement of social driver behavior 4.8 Car free life: A combination of all elements in a systematic approach is needed 4.9 Change of car fixated legislation 4.10 Car Sharing as an important strategy 4.11 Car free societies everywhere. Which strategy works best? 4.12 Better architecture and perfect public transport for a of urban life

0 Preface The following historical analysis tries to look back to the different steps of expert discussion and planning concepts in and some other leading countries in the field of traffic calming and develops a more radical strategy which would change our mobility system generally and produce a much higher level of transport safety, environmental quality, urban quality and bring a much better urban development.

Most members of the COST C 6 working groups 1 and 2 prefer moderate strategies, which try a careful step by step strategy and understand every little progress in pedestrian safety in some areas as a great success. Some progress in traffic calming in some selected areas would make them happy.

They accept the traditional strategy of transport planners to define a hierarchy of street networks which relates traffic calming to small housing areas with of little car volumes and no importance in the busy trunk system. They understand that most busy main arterial are a taboo area where changes in favour of would be very limited. They accept that higher car speeds are to be accepted on main arterial roads.

And they accept that mass motorization is an unpreventable trend which will continue world wide. So they do not understand traffic calming as a kind of demotorization strategy.

But this positions are not very consequent. Most accidents with pedestrians are located along busy roads. Most lacks of comfort and free move for pedestrians are relevant on busy roads. The highest densities in housing and shopping are often located along busy roads. So a real change in urban quality and pedestrian safety needs a more radical change.

My alternative strategy is as well influenced by the technical revolution. We now have modern logistic instruments which enable efficient forms of speed control with simple electronically equipment in the car and street. We do not 2 need all the very expensive elements of physical traffic calming, which take much time to be implemented and which are one of the reasons why general legislation did not react in a consequent way. By saying that only street design is a relevant means of action to influence drivers behavior legislation and administration continued the car friendly framwork.

Even rich countries like Germany, Holland or Denmark had to learn the lesson, that physical traffic calming will need generations of planners and decades of time unless is will change the whole transport system. So new legislation would be necessary, which would be influenced by the principle of general traffic calming and new electronical techniques would work much more efficient: by general speed reduction, general parking restriction, general electronical speed control in and street equipment and general change in planning laws and civil codes.

Of course my strategy still accepts reasons for a hierarchy of streets: the is more important than the little alleyway. But its importance is not defined by the number of cars and the speed of car drivers. It is mainly a result of its location, land use functions, its type of architecture (density, size of buildings, size of public space, design quality, number of trees etc.). And if hierarchy is really taken seriously the hierarchy of pedestrian networks is much more important: it ranges from the little to the broad boulevard or the busy market place. Unless we discuss further strategies for "domestication" and adaptation of the car in towns we should seriously discuss the more efficient strategy of demotorization, which means to organise transport in a more efficient way, which saves lives, environment and urban qualities.

And of course my strategy still accepts reasons for physical traffic calming with elements of street design. But these efforts must not mainly be designed in respect to reducing car speeds but in respect of pedestrian comfort and urban quality. So they are not part of a calming strategy but a general strategy. And they can be concentrated on areas where real design and quality problems do exist. In that understanding new trees in a street are much better than humps and bumps. And fences along an or an underpass under an intersection are the worst elements possible. This "efficiency and quality strategy" needs further support by COST C 6.

1. Divide et impera. "Lane by lane" separation as a basic principle of motorised cities Street design and its legal basis was mainly influenced by the concept of Separation: fast motor vehicles and slow, nonmotorized Traffic should be separated strictly and every mode of transport should have its own space: side walks for pedestrians, bicycle lanes for cyclists, carriageways for the motorcars. The design should provide broad, straight, free car lanes without any obstacles. Street furniture like lights, Traffic signals etc. were meant to be located in the side walk. Pedestrians should be supported with a sort of "" in form of zebra crossings or Traffic signals for crossing safely the car lanes. The principle of separation led to a fundamental right of way for the cars which was very much related to the "normal speed" for inner urban Traffic which was defined as 50 km per hour. This speed made it extremely dangerous to walk or stand or play as a pedestrian in a car lane. Presence of pedestrians in car lanes was defined as an exception, only for crossing purposes and in the shortest possible way. The Carriageway was seen as a very dangerous, hostile space from which pedestrians should be kept away. The rules of power of strong car engines and high car speed defined pedestrians as weak creatures.

1.1 Consequences for street design: linear thinking killed the quality of public space Engineers didn't have any more interest in the design quality of public spaces, which were mainly related to the surrounding architecture. They only referred to the logic of maximum capacity for cars and a strict separation of the different modes: walking, , car parking, car driving and - if meant to be necessary, special lanes for buses or trams. New built areas were equipped with streets which got 2-3 times more of width than was seen to be necessary before motorization. A car lane should have at least 3,00-3,50 m for each direction, a parking lane 2,40 m. Since both car lanes and parking lanes were meant to be necessary everywhere, even in old build up areas the space for driving and parking cars had to be taken from the existing public space: so little space was left for pedestrians and cyclists, for trees and public or private gardens. Often traditional broad side walks were divided into one half for car parking or broader car lanes and only small rests were left for pedestrians. Often trees had to be cut off to give space for cars. Often private or public gardens were sacrificed to the car Traffic. Maximum space was given to cars in intersections, where special lanes should serve cars turning left or right. To prevent pedestrians from crossing busy intersections, often bridges or underpasses were built and crossing on the surface was restricted by fences. In new built areas and along main arterial roads the chance was taken to provide car Traffic with maximum width from the beginning and to separate the pedestrians most radically from car Traffic. So the houses on both sides of a street were separated in much longer distances in modern architecture, which developed completely new shapes of motorway age architecture. Small alleyways disappeared from the repertoire of architects, the settlement density decreased steadily. The European tradition of compact high density mixed land use building was given up.

3

1.2 Consequences for architecture and land use Low rise -low density architecture became more and more popular, because it could provide maximum space for cars. The street as most important element in public space did no more define the symbiosis with the houses. New types of houses which were separated in great distance from streets behind large gardens became popular. Instead of placing the front of buildings to the street very often houses now showed their "back side" to the street. The result of this was, that many side walks didn't provide public control, people started to feel unsafe there because the "eyes" of the houses were shut. The worst quality of public space was provided in public housing, where often the scale of motorways invaded housing areas. The new scale influenced as well the details like street lanterns and Traffic signs with a maximum height and size. The Charter of Athens proposed to separate not only public spaces for perfect car management but to separate urban functions strictly and to put maximum distance between buildings. New housing, commercial and industrial areas were built with low rise and low density. The distance between buildings and urban functions increased, the quality of public space as a basic element in pedestrian networks decreased. This had very bad consequences for pedestrians. Walking was the looser of modern urban development. The most extreme examples for this fatal planning philosophy can be seen in all suburban structures.

2. Traffic calming and pedestrian zones as a first attempt for correction towards a better coexistence in Traffic In the 60ties scepticism became more relevant, that the car orientation would destroy cities, would lead to extreme risks for pedestrians and especially children and elderly people and would make walking too unattractive. So first discussions started to correct the separation strategy. Traffic calming became a topic on the agenda of transport and urban planning policy.

2.1 Pedestrian zones as little islands in a car friendly surrounding The starting point were the little pedestrian zones which were established in some parts of the commercial city centres. In pedestrian zones some car Traffic still was relevant because goods delivery was still necessary. So the speed of this remaining car Traffic was restricted to low levels like 10 or 20 km h, which was meant to be safe for pedestrians using the same surface than the cars. So the right of power and speed was restricted in these small areas, a sort of mixed, "coexistence use" of the street was re-established, but only as an exception for few small "islands" of commercial streets, where a heavy and fast car Traffic would disturb shopping people too much, because narrow shopping streets were highly polluted with gas and noise from the cars, pedestrians were hindered crossing from one side to the other, window shopping became impossible because of the great number of cars driving and parking. So the most important shopping streets were closed for the general car Traffic and after some time of experimental closure a final redesign of street surfaces took place. The car oriented separation of stripes and lanes was given up, public space was redesigned according to the traditional design of historical streets. Access for goods delivery was often continued but only for some early morning hours or late night hours. If public transport was present before pedestrianisation in most cases buses and trams were as well taken out. The same was due to which were prohibited in most pedestrian zones of that time. In some cases special new streets were built in the "backyard" of the pedestrian zones, often old historical buildings were broken down for these delivery streets which then had a very poor design quality contrasting massively with the new quality of the front side pedestrian zones. Most pedestrian zones where very small and included only a little number of streets and squares. (little islands or gettoes for pedestrians). The first pedestrian zones were massively attacked by the retailers lobbies who expected losses for shop keepers. But the contrary happened in most cases. Pedestrian zones proved as attractive, masses of visitors came, retailers made a good business and a process of gentrification started, which led to high competition of firms to locate in the pedestrian zones. They have initialised massive investment in the modernisation of private and public buildings. User research has proved that activities of visitors became more urban again: with more frequent visits, a longer stay in the city, more activities including culture, leisure etc., higher amount of expenditure. Even the length of walks increased and visitors made use of the whole network of pedestrianized streets. One important consequence was the renaissance of market- activities on important public squares like flower market, handicraft market, arts market, vegetable market etc. And as well the open air culture became popular again, with concerts, theatre etc. in the pedestrianized city centre. Cafes and restaurants made use of the public space with chairs and service outdoor. The most successful pedestrian zones were those with a large network of pedestrian streets and with pedestrian friendly connections to the neighbouring areas, like Freiburg. They tried to make it attractive to walk from home or from work to the city centre or to use the bike, which is accepted to those parts of the with broader streets and less high density of pedestrians. In about 20 % of the pedestrian zones public transport is integrated. Some bus or tram lines go through the pedestrian zones and sometimes even one of the most important connection points is located in the pedestrian zone. Most pedestrian zones were combined with new inner ring roads along the historical town centre and with massive investment into innerurban parking, to attract maximum car Traffic. So they were not really meant as a strategy to create a general pedestrian friendly street network. Only few cases of that time tried to plan complete pedestrian 4 networks from the city centres to the neighbouring areas. But in the 70ties the concept for pedestrian zones was enlarged. The size was increased, often pedestrian zones were combined with other means of Traffic calming in their surrounding streets. At the end of the 70ties about 1000 pedestrian zones had been established in Germany, nowadays their number is estimated to 3000. Rather all towns have at least one central pedestrian zone, which has been enlarged several times and often some subcenters and even some suburban shopping malls have their own pedestrian zone. Some examples like Freiburg, Göttingen, Bonn, Aachen have expanded their pedestrian zone to the whole radius of the historical town centre and don't only include commercial streets but as well more quiet areas with housing function or outstanding historical and architectural importance. They include all important squares and sometimes are connected to the neighbouring areas by a sort of semipedestrianized streets or (f.e. Hannover with its Lister Meile, Passarelle, Lange Laube). But in most other cases the busy ring roads and the many parking garages around the pedestrian zone are massive obstacles for pedestrians. Planners try to optimise access for massive car Traffic to the pedestrian zone and therefor accessibility for pedestrians is poor. The model for this strategy is the suburban mall or shopping centre which provides a maximum of car parking capacity and a dense network of motorways or main arterial roads, but inside the shopping buildings one or two special, well designed squares or alleyways shall simulate a sort of urban atmosphere. The accessibility for public transport users often has worsened, because in most cases trams or bus lines were taken out of the city centre. They serve this area only with tangential lines and stops which makes the distance to the most attractive commercial areas longer than before. In the big cities often new subway systems have been established instead of the former tram service on the surface, but in these cases the network density and the number of stops again has decreased. The result are again longer distances for users. The worst examples for this car oriented type of pedestrian zone are the Ruhrgebiet cities like , Bochum, Mülheim, Dortmund, Duisburg. In all these cases the public transport, cycling and walking share in shopping modal split has decreased massively. Often the car Traffic, which was attracted by the pedestrian zones, led to new disturbances in the neighbouring housing areas. This led to new initiatives to expand traffic calming strategies as well into the high density, old traditional housing areas, located nearby to the city centre.

2.2 Woonerf and Winkelerf. The influence of Dutch examples on German Traffic calming Holland didn't introduce so many pedestrian zones than Germany in that time. Planners were more interested in a possible coexistence of slow car Traffic and both pedestrian and bicycle Traffic in Shopping streets, which might provide a comparable quality and safety like a pedestrian zone. The so-called Winkelerven concept for Shopping areas and Woonerven concept for residential areas was born in the beginning of 70ties. The basic strategy was to slow down the car Traffic and to integrate both the car- and non motorised cycle and pedestrian Traffic without obstruction for each other. Some years later the Dutch strategy for Traffic calming was copied by German planners. How to handle the car parking proved to be the greatest problem. A certain number of parking cars as a design element should be very important but it was obvious that too many parking cars would defeat the important goals of the traffic calming strategies. Germany started corresponding investment programmes for Traffic calming in both residential areas and city centres from the beginning 80ties. In 1985 the guide lines for the design of local streets (EAE) introduced the abolition of the priority of car Traffic and stated a desirable maximum speed of 30 km. But nevertheless the traffic situation in the cities didn't change fundamentally, because legislation defined a selective set of traffical and structural conditions, which still defined Traffic calming design as an exception but not the rule. Only around 2% of the local road network were designed as Traffic calming areas. In Northrhine-Westfalia massive funds of Laender government led to a share of 6% streets with Traffic calmed design. In Traffic calmed streets it was no problem to integrate the public traffic and the bicycle traffic.

2.3 Systematic 30 km h limit strategies The realisation of a complete Traffic calmed street network would make necessary intensive design measures with high financial expenses. It was obvious that the money for this was not available. So planners and politicians suggested in the beginning of the 80ties the tempo 30 zones as a more cost-effective means of Traffic calming. The German Federation of Cities demanded a general limit for local Traffic to 30 km h. But the acting federal and Laender governments did not agree and some judgements of the Supreme Administrative Court suggested a restrictive practice for 30 km h zones. As a consequence most cities did not act systematically and preferred a selective zonal strategy. Only 30% of the German urban road network (in NRW 50%) are 30 tempo zones. Indeed tempo 30 zones contribute to a reduction of conflicts but nevertheless it does not define a peaceful coexistence on the lane, because it keeps the privileges of the car Traffic in power.

5

2.4 Coexistence strategies for bicycle lanes and bus lanes Another exception from the classic separation was also practised in the treatment of bicycle and bus lanes. Originally one tried to separate the bicycle traffic from the car lane. But in the beginning of the 80ties a lot of cycle lanes have been marked on the carriageway in a way that broad cars like trucks or buses would have to partly use the cycle lane for passing along. Some cities established complete bicycle traffic systems within a very short time and for very little investment by painting cycle lanes on the carriageway. So the original principle of strict separation of cycle and car Traffic was modified in two directions: for distributor and main arterial roads a new type of cycle lanes or tracks was established. And for areas with speed limitations the mixed use of the carriageway by both cycles and cars was seen to be safe. If a massive promotion of cycles was intended, the whole carriageway was defined as cycle lane, but cars were admitted on it (so called "Fahrradstraße" or "bicycle priority street"). Sometimes mixed use was established as well for bus lanes. They were modified as a combined cycle and bus lane or broad cycle lanes were opened as well for buses. By this strategy more space could be saved for pedestrians and cycle Traffic was seen as a regular part of the vehicle Traffic. Another change took place in the general strategy for bus or tram lanes. While in the 70ties and 80ties often separate bus- and tram lanes were seen as obligatory in a promotion strategy for public transport, later a "time Sharing" strategy was seen as equivalent. Mainly Traffic signals and short pieces of bus or tram lanes should manage that buses or trams would always drive in the first position oft a queue of vehicles. If this would work a continuous public transport lane would not be needed and much more space would be available for side walks, trees etc. .

3. Models for a systematically separation of Traffic modes in "new town areas" Since the idea of lane by lane separation seemed to work not well in terms of safety and urban quality and the strategy of coexistence by Traffic calming seemed to restrict car Traffic too much and to bring too little quality for pedestrians, in some special cases a more radical separation strategy was implemented by urban planners in new town developments. It was a big challenge to plan new towns and satellite towns, because a completely new development and new road network had to be fashioned.

3.1 Horizontal "street by street" separation in a small scale In Germany many public housing projects in suburban areas established peripheral collective garages. This led to a car free network of pedestrian streets and internal . But most of this cases included only very small areas and short roads. Again like in inner pedestrian zones the principle of little islands without real network effects was used. Planners suggested that people would not accept longer distances between car parking and their houses. A systematic promotion of walking and general reduction of motorization was not intended. Only some of the conflicts between cars and pedestrians should be solved in selected residential streets.

3.2 Complete horizontal "street by street" separation in new town areas In some foreign new town examples a more extensive practice of horizontal "street by street" separation was implemented. The best known modern example is the Dutch new town Houten (south-east of Utrecht). Houten was built for about 45.000 inhabitants. It provided an internal pedestrians and cyclists priority network with high landscape design quality (water, trees, greenways) and without any conflicts with car Traffic. The car Traffic is served with a narrow peripheral and few narrow radial cul de sac feeder roads. Cars are not served with short connections from one area to the next. Though this concept does not give high priority to car Traffic, Parking space is distributed along the radial feeder roads. The result is a high modal spilt share for cycling and walking in the internal mobility and a very high safety standard. After similar principles some new garden city-towns have been designed in USA and England in the 20ties and 30ties. Later in England the new towns of Milton Keynes and were designed in a comparable way in the 50ties and 60ties, but with much higher capacity and standards for the car Traffic (with comfort expressways, fly overs, parking garages). These concepts do not show much ambition for the reduction of the car Traffic. Solely the security of the bicycle- and pedestrian Traffic in busy intersections could be optimised by an own and independent road network system. This still led to a very slight number of accidents. Also in Scandinavia there are numerous similar projects, like in the north of (Alkalla, Husby, Kista). In similar ways some German towns like Gauting near Munich and the satellite town Langwasser in Nürnberg were designed. All these examples show that despite of a sensible consideration concerning the importance of pedestrian- and bicycle Traffic, the remaining highways are still concepted as usual: with the typical dimension for massive car flows with high speed and massive car parking facilities. It was not the aim to reduce car Traffic, to save costs and space and to look for a better urban design quality.

6

3.3 Vertical "level by level" separation in new town or new business areas In other cases planners created a vertical "level by level" separation with the help of underground streets and parking space, while a network of pedestrian roads was designed on the surface. This solution was very common for main arterial roads and busy intersections in the 60ties and 70ties, but in most of these cases pedestrians had to vanish from the surface. Now in some new cases the car Traffic was put underground. The best known example is the Belgian new town Louvain la Neufe in the Southwest of . Car Parking and distributor main streets are under the artificial surface. On the surface a very compact university-, residential-, business- and Shopping town for almost 25.000 inhabitants and approx. 5.000 jobs has been erected. The urban development of the inner city was consciously created like an old urban town, as a kind of "stony city" with little green spaces and trees, but with a dense network of little alleyways and little squares. The centre has a very high density, a mixed shop, office and housing land use. Since the "underground investment" proved to be very expensive, only a part of the original concept could be built, because investors and government run out of money. Similar to these examples the two areas around the old "Les Halles" and the new office town "La Defense" in Paris have been developed, with pedestrian streets on the surface and distributor and feeder roads and parking facilities of maximum capacity and comfort for car drivers in the underground. This "separation of levels" is extremely expensive, underground mostly cost the twentyfold of on surface . Therefore such attempts could not be realised systematically, except from few really small areas with special investment conditions. Some of the latest examples are projects along the river Rhine in Duesseldorf and , where lively promenades have been created on the surface instead of the earlier motorwaylike highways. They had been put underground. But in both cases the costs of 200.000.000 Euro in Cologne and 300.000.000 Euro in Duesseldorf make clear that this strategy cannot be copied systematically. And the effect is very critical. Driving time has been improved for many car users, which now increased car use massively. And the little promenades didn't change much of the general safety and walking conditions in Cologne and Duesseldorf. For the same money instead of the very short division of 1 km and 1,5 km of tunnel a complete improvement of some 70 km -100 km of urban highways in a more moderate strategy (planting 4 rows of trees, redesigning the carriageway in a more Traffic calmed way, installing automatic speed control, establishing cycle lanes and providing ten times more crossing facilities and double width of side walks for pedestrians) would have been possible.

But even from the few examples it is recognisable that in the case of car free design on the surface the courage towards more urban design of street surfaces and urban architecture increases. Again it is possible to build alleys and to lay out well designed places, because the car Traffic with its huge need for space is banished.

3.4 "Time Sharing" separation Karl Valentin, a German comedian actor, wrote a proposal for safe and efficient urban transport: cycles should be allowed only on Mondays, cars only on Tuesdays, pedestrians only on Wednesdays, buses and trams only on Thursdays and so on. This humorist proposal did not impress German planners very much . But in some cases and much more frequent in other countries time Sharing strategies are seen as a relevant approach. The best known German case is the night driving prohibition in special housing areas or health resort areas. Very popular have been the so called "car free Sundays" in 1974, when the energy crisis was the reason for 4 Sundays without private car Traffic. Masses of citizens celebrated this occasion of complete freedom for pedestrians and cyclists as the greatest happening which ever took place in Germany. The Government, which was "shocked" by the broad enthusiasm of the masses about the new freedom turned back immediately to the rules of car dominated Sundays for more than 25 years unless a sort of revival came up with the activities of Italian and French local politicians under the assistance of the EU to organise regular car free Sundays on local level. As well in Germany car free local Sundays have become very popular for tourist purposes. On some special Sundays the Rhine valley, Mosel valley and other areas are closed up for cars and this attracts masses of cyclists, skaters, walkers to celebrate the event. In time Sharing strategies are much more common. In big cities like or Osaka daily closures of busy roads are common in summer during lunch time, when masses of office people have their lunchtime break outside on the street surface, where only some minutes earlier still thousands of cars passed by. Then for 1 or 2 hours the streets are closed as a lunchtime promenade. The same strategy has been developed for safety of school children by closing all streets around the school locations for about 1 hour in the morning and noon time. There are thousands of so called school protection areas in Japanese towns. In Germany the time Sharing strategy became popular again when Luebeck and Aachen closed their city centres regularly on Saturdays and Sundays for car Traffic (except early morning access to some parking garages). In both cases the target was to make family Shopping more attractive and to expand the existing pedestrian zones to a radius of 10-15 times of the earlier amount. In both cases the courage to close up the whole centre for all days of a week was too little. So the measures were started as temporal experiments of time Sharing.

7

4. Missing ambition for a general change. Why not ban the car generally and domesticate the remaining motorized traffic electronically?

The models of Traffic calming with its horizontal and vertical or time sharing separation do not really try to reduce the car Traffic. In principle the car Traffic is privileged with highest comfort and investment. Only in very small areas car driving (access, speed) and parking is restricted in pedestrian zones and poor comfort for cars in Traffic calmed areas is compensated by a maximum car comfort on main arterial roads and many parking garages. The only advantage of this strategy is, that streets and places which aren't used by car Traffic could be created more thriftier, more compact and more urban. Altogether it is again possible to save public space and plan for higher densities and more compact design. In these areas higher qualities and more safety can be offered to the pedestrian- and bicycle Traffic and public transport which leads to a higher share of walking, cycling and bus & tram usage in the Modal Split. A much more successful strategy extremely in favour of pedestrian safety and urban quality would be, to ban the private car generally and not only in some small areas. And to domesticate the remaining motorized traffic by modern electronic speed control.

There have been already selected places which opposed the invasion of car Traffic from the very beginning. The most known example is , the typical pedestrian city, in which a large part of the mobility is transacted both on foot or over with private and public boats. In the Mediterranean region there are also numerous other places which do not have car Traffic at all, because they only provide alleys and staircases. Some historical Arabic places show similar structures, their road structure is simply too narrow for the car Traffic. For a long time such exceptions were seen as historic relics and by no means as a future-oriented model. In the meanwhile a lot of planners demand that the historic examples should be taken as a model for modern mobility management. There a some encouraging examples for new experiments with this strategy to ban the private car generally from local Traffic. The first examples of these new strategies are: * Concepts for the so-called car free cities like Bologna, Lübeck and Aachen: they work with general or temporary prohibition of car access (exceptions only for owners of private garages and goods delivery); * Concepts for car free health resorts or tourist centres like in Switzerland, in Bavaria and the Northeastcoast: they limit or forbid car Traffic and admit electric vehicles; * Concepts for car free residential areas like Amsterdam, Hamburg, Bremen or Muenster: they do not provide carriageways and parking facilities for private cars. Only car Sharing facilities are accepted. Tenants have a regular job and tenant ticket for public transport. * Concepts of the community of the car free cities which develop conceptual contributions for car Traffic reducing measures and strategies, but indeed, most of the cities are still far away from a systematic transformation.

And there have started new high-tech- experiments in modern electronical thechniques for control of driver behavior. In some Swedish and Dutch towns cars are equipped with electroncal speed control engines, in some German towns automatic speed gun control is implemented on selected streets. So the late discussion on telematics may shift to a new direction which would allow great benefits for pedestrians, environment and cost saving in urban infrastructure.

4.1 Car free City centre The concepts of car free cities (which mainly mean car free city centres) have become famous in Bologna, in Lübeck and Aachen. They are more than just the classical strategies of the pedestrian zones. Car free cities include the entire road network of the large inner cities extensively. The stiff separation into car free- and car orientated corridors is given up in the inner city. And the size of the car free areas is facing the slow development of the classical pedestrian zones, which in most cases are only little islands. In Lübeck, which had only a small pedestrian zone, the new car restricted area grew 15 times to the former size. In Aachen the growth factor was 10. For München BMW has developed a plan, to expand the car free area (blue zone) by the factor 8. The current "anxiety" with regard to the maximum distance for walking is given up. The reduced accessibility for cars is compensated by the multiplication of the quality of pedestrian infrastructure, public transport and bicycle network.

In theses cases car Traffic reduction is taken seriously. And car Traffic is no more identified with maximum number of cars. Car Sharing is seen as a much more efficient way of car usage which saves much public space, prevents congestion and is much more favourable for the alternatives walking, cycling and biking. By these new strategies it should be possible to increase mobility by reducing the number of cars. Afterwards there are more persons than before. Their duration of stay increases in the same manner like the number and distinction of their activities. Since much more people visit the inner city, the passer-by-flows distribute more evenly on a larger area. In addition to this there is also an urban development and economical effect which is very profitable. Such concepts for car free cities have mostly been developed in connection with extensive measures for improvement of public transport. The network of bus route is condensed, there are much more bus stops than previously, the schedules and the fares are fashioned more attractively. In larger cities new projects of tram and urban railway have been introduced (for example Freiburg, Straßburg, Saarbrücken). With such ambitious attempts of the massive advancement of public transport, a fundamental 8 change within the Traffic structures should be reached. Conditions for the remaining car Traffic for delivery services and cargo lorries can be improved. They suffer most from the recent congestion.

4.2 Better use of carriageways: Cities must develop a repertoire. If the remaining car Traffic sinks to a small size (20-30% of the prior volume), large scopes for a changed use of the car lanes could arise. In case of the historic old town of Bologna this strategy has proved good, because of the fact that streets in the inner city have not been designed into car friendly shapes. Pedestrians and cyclists are able to move very unrestricted and the bus lines serve the inner city centrally. But in most cases a problem will arise with the first steps of the new strategy. Temporary closing at weekends will not allow a permanent redesign of street surfaces. But for the users during the closure time the advantage of reduced car Traffic has to be made obvious. Permanent design elements would hinder the car Traffic on the other days, when the restrictions are abandoned. So far just a few imaginations concerning an arrangement of a meaningful temporary use of pedestrians- and bicycle Traffic and stay on carriageways have been developed. In France, Japan or Scandinavia in comparable situations tables, chairs and market stalls along with flowerpots and parasols are simply put on the lane which makes it obvious that the carriageways is now free for pedestrians, cyclists and as a promenade. An intensive use will convince the sceptics quickly. If the carriageways aren't used by such things, the critics will complain the concepts and ideas quickly as not being accepted by the people.

4.3 Public Transport as the basis of modern mobility The more extensive centres and quarters get, the more important it is to make them accessible for public transport as good as possible. Public transport can offer massive advantages -compared to the car- in reaching these areas. With public transport one must be able to reach the centre faster, cheaper and in a more attractive way than by car. That requires a considerable rethinking also in public transport planning. Quite often in traditional concepts public transport is regarded as disturbing and hardly possible to integrate. That is why it is preferably led on main roads, which are placed on the periphery of the areas. It has also come to this development because of the circumstances that public transport vehicles got more bigger and faster due to misunderstood rationalisation reasons. Public transport planners had a wrong fixation on the commuter Traffic flows in the region, not knowing, that 80% of local mobility is only on short distances, but 50 % of local car usage is due to short distance trips. Therefore its scopes became always longer, its lines always "high-speed-railway-like" or "high-speed-bus-like", often behind crash barriers. This not at all was friendly for pedestrians as passengers who would prefer short distances to the bus or tram stops. And who would prefer easy access to the stop without stair climbing. Because of that wrong development the direct contact to the customers, which is important for success on the market got lost more and more. The privilege, to provide an attractive "door-to-door-Traffic" was monopolised for car-Traffic, with the claim, to drive and park everywhere. The concept of car-free-towns must correct this wrong development in twofold regard: the basic logic, to park and drive everywhere by car, must be cancelled for protection reasons (emissions, dangers, disruptive effects). The complementary logic which says that public transport can only serve a few corridors, must be cancelled as well. Free access to all areas by bus and tram and train is the basic requirement for car free town development. A dense network of public transport lines with short distances to all stops, well designed stops with high quality for pedestrians and cyclists and a dense schedule are necessary. Underground public transport seems to be detrimental and unnecessary for car free towns. Faster and more greatly bundled public transport systems are only needed on medium and large distances. But they have to be tied together at a lot of junctions with local feeder bus or tram services. Feeder buses and trams have to slow down to tolerable speeds which are safe for pedestrians and good for a liveable surrounding. A maximum speed of 20 km/h for pedestrian streets and 30 km/h for Traffic calmed streets will be OK. These speeds are accepted by passengers, pedestrians and cyclists very well. With this speed it is possible to stop at many stops frequently. Some investigations ascertained that bus and tram services in car free areas do not cause any problems concerning security and liveability; but it brings a lot of advantage of attractiveness. Well known examples for the peaceful coexistence of tram and dense pedestrian Traffic are , Freiburg, Kassel and Zürich, for bus and dense pedestrian Traffic are Regensburg, Göttingen, Osnabrück and Bonn. In Lindau the citybuses are able to run through the middle of the narrowly cultivated historic islands and through the very narrow alleys safely. On this background it is incomprehensible, why some cities insert their whole ambition and massive investment to banish buses and trams out of the inner part of the cities. A solely tangential or peripheral access for bus or tram to car free areas is not very attractive and costs considerable market shares. One should not underestimate the pleasure of "window Shopping" out of a bus or tram.

4.4 Car free health resorts or tourist towns The greatest interest for car free development is shown by small and midsize health resort places and tourist towns. The first examples have been planned for some Islands, where in the 50ties and 60ties cars had been admitted. To improve 9 the environment cars have been banned again in the 70ties and 80ties. This was planned in demonstrative contrast to other islands and coastal areas where cars are invited heartily, like Sylt, Norderney or the Danish coasts. Baltrum, Langeoog, Spiekeoog got high acceptance to ban the cars. Politicians, local retailers and hotels and the native people saw the advantage for families and guests with interest for a good environment. Only the police and fire brigade have motor cars. Goods delivery is managed with electric powered vehicles. Tourists get there by ship and island-tram. In Svizerland 16 tourist places have copied this solution in the 70ties and 80ties. They practice a close cooperation and a successful international marketing for their car free strategy. Tourists coming by car to the area are stopped at a peripheral train or bus stations with park & Ride facilities. The streets are closed for private cars. Tourists have to enter the trains or buses and to continue their trip by public transport. The car free tourism places promise quietness, no stress, good air, fine views, much free space on lovely promenades, peaceful walking and no dangers for children, the elderly or the drunken guest. These are qualities which distinguish the places positively from ordinary tourism places. The same concept has been copied by some 36 Bavarian tourism and health resort places, which keep at least their centres and spa areas free from cars. Special city- and tourist bus services provide free access and connect peripheral parking facilities with the car free areas. Only good's delivery cars are accepted in the restricted zones.

4.5 Car free housing areas- restrictive parking management Car free housing is the latest development of the alternative transport policy strategies. It goes much farther than the earlier strategy of cul de sac and short car free residential streets. It now includes a whole network of car free streets, squares or villages. And it is meant to restrict not only the access for cars but as well to regulate the motorization. People living there are expected not to posses a car and therefor no parking facilities are provided. There may be an exception for some visitors cars and for the public cars, which belong to a local car Sharing service or a local taxi service. This is a radical change from the strategies mentioned earlier. which only modiefied the location for the private car parking. In most cases the car was parked in front of the house, in some cases car parking was located in the end of the street in some 50-100 m distance and in very few cases parking was located at the periphery of the area in some 200-300 m distance. In some cases in Japanese towns car parking was restricted to the outermost fringe of the town in a distances of 3-10 km from the housing areas. This is the reason why in japanese big towns motorisation is much under european level and private car use is not very frequent on workingdays. Car use is mainly concentrated on the weekends for leisure purposes. Families than go by Bike or by bus or tram or subway to the peripheral parking garage to start the car use. So parking strategies have much influence on the Traffic development and amount of car Traffic. This is often not taken into account by planners and politicians. The more parking is kept out from larger areas and the more parking capacaty is restrictedthe the more chances are given to real car free street networks and the more chances are given to walking, cycling and public transport, if they allow mobility from door to door.

4.6 Modern telematic: a strong support for reinforcement of social driver behavior Ingenieers have developed new measures to assist drivers in their hard work of speed control. Insted of implementing millions of physical "obstacles" argainst fast drivers eclectronical control will regulate desirable speeds everywhere automatically. Every car has to be equipped with an electronical "black box" which serves different purpopses: regulate and control speed, assist routing desires and provide necerssary data about the driving behavior in the last part of a trip in case of an accident. As well research purposes can be assisted with the informations of the black box. Complementary electronical traffic signals are possible. Legislation would have to define the standards for car- equippment and electronical traffic signals and to define the desirable levels for inner urban speeds which would be under 20 kmh, 30 kmh and as an exception for streets with little protection needs 40 kmh. Higher speeds would not be accaptable for urban areas with mixed usage of public spaces.

4.7 Demotorization as a general strategy Ambitious car free strategies my have positive influence on private motorization reducing the number of private cars massively. This will spare many expenses for infrastructure, streets, Traffic signs, parking facilities etc. . It will improve environmental qualities everywhere and provide high safety standards. The massive contrast of lovely frontside (pedestrian friendly) and ugly backside with massive parking and car lanes shall be stopped and be converted to a general quality approach. Car free housing shall stimulate an urban high density and high quality architecture and a good design of public space which is favourable for pedestrians and urban green. After banning car parking from the streets small alleys and squares can be an ordinary form of urban street network. Houses can be located again in a compact way along the streetfront. The old European tradition of compact towns can be again the model for urban development and not the American scale of motorway age and maximum car parking space in suburbia and down town.

Car free mobility concepts are radical. They don't accept the old principles that mobility and wealth are dependent on the greatest possible number of cars. Theses new concepts are concentrated on efficiency and on an economical space and cost saving transport system. Since 35-45 % of all households in urban areas do not posess a car but suffer very 10 much from the heavy and dense car traffic in their environment the first step of this strategy is to offer a new type of Traffic calmed car free housing to them. It is very important to demonstrate the new qualities of this type of housing by a good architecture and street design. And to communicate the new quality in terms of better safety, better environment, less costs for infrastructure and housing, higher transport efficiency in fascinating pictures. The priority should not be given to words and information indicating that these areas are amputated from cars and suffer from poor transport infrastructure. The contrary is needed, to indicate that these areas are rich in quality, provide a better and safer environment, a higher accessibility and more freedom for mobile people. The problem is that cars still are communicated as a symbol for freedom and wealth though too many cars produce the contrary: congestion, inefficiency, bad environment and poor design quality. An important aspect of the car free strategy is the high quality of the new mobility services. Of course a perfect system of high quality pedestrian and cycle network is a basic need. As well a perfect public transport system with a dense line and stop network and high service frequency is needed. All people should participate in the attractive tariff system with job tickets, students tickets and car free housing tickets. In addition a system of car sharing stations and hire a bike and hire a car stations should be established. Modern Mobility- shops with fully computerised equipment should be present in every housing area and business district. The costs for this modern mobility system are much smaller than the costs we invest into the car system. Car free housing areas need a specific minimum size to create an economic basis for the new mobility services and to make them independent from the negative effects of neighbouring areas where the car is still dominant. This fact is in contrast to the normal cowardliness of planners and politicians who for the first projects in car free housing will prefer very small dimensions. It is the same misunderstanding which was reported from the strategies for pedestrian zones and Traffic calming. Planners always tend to prefer a "little island strategy". These strategies newer will be able to produce relevant changes. A "mini-Houten" (as a small copy of the above mentioned Dutch new town example) with only 200 or 400 households would not have been able to produce the relevant quality. 2000 or 4000 households will demonstrate much better the effects. But the few projects which have been realised until now (Hamburg, Bremen, Münster, , Amsterdam) are mainly of small size. So it will take some more time until projects with the relevant size will be established.

4.8 Car free life: A combination of all elements in a systematic approach is needed A radical change of our transport and mobility problems, safety problems and environment problems will only be possible after a systematic implementation of the different elements and strategies mentioned above. Inner city pedestrian zones should be enlarged, they should no more be combined with the many obstacles of parking garages and ring roads and busy intersections. They should provide good access for tram or bus and train. They should integrate cycles and some of the bus and tram lines to travel easy into to hart of the city. The network of promenades for pedestrians and cyclists should be continuously expanded and connected with the pedestrian zones. Pedestrian zones should be offered not only in the city centre but as well in other shopping and commercial districts and in housing areas. Traffic calming should be the basic principle for organisation of mobility: with slow speed and a coexistence of walking and driving. The maximum speed should be defined by legislation in all European countries to 30 km h in urban areas. Parking should be restricted everywhere to a tolerable amount, mainly for goods delivery and modern mobility car sharing and taxi service cars. Public transport needs to be redesigned systematically. It has to be more flexible and more customer orientated. With dense networks of lines and a number of stops which is expanded by a factor of about 10. So an easy and comfortable ride by bus or tram or train is offered from everywhere to anywhere at any time.

Urban planning and architecture will turn back to old European traditions of compact and mixed land use development. Public space will be discovered again as the most important space in town, with high design quality, many trees and comfortable space for standing and walking. Car free life provides the best conditions for pedestrian and cyclists and makes it possible to forget the main motive for many people to move out of town to the suburban green belt. The paradox American way of life circulus vitiosus that people try to escape from the congestion and noise and pollution of the massive urban car traffic by car, locating themselves somewhere in suburbia, where they completely become dependent of their cars (one for father, one for mummy and one or two for the elder children) can be interrupted. Urban life becomes attractive again, even for families with little children.

Car free life is no utopia. The most famous example Venice is understood as very attractive. More and more planners propose to organise mobility comparable to Venice, though without water. The most important role in local mobility should be given back to walking. The role of gondola and boats outside Venice will be the role of either cycling, car sharing, Taxi and public transport. 4.000.000 cars would be enough to provide the same mobility than today is attempted by 45.000.000 in Germany, if the alternative modes would be promoted in an efficient way.

The most frequent argument against car free life is a massive loss of mobility and flexibility. Pedestrians would walk only short distances. Cyclists would drive only short distances. Both would not be real transport to move heavy things. And a good public transport system could not be financed and would make the governments bankrupt. The only truth in this argument is, that car free life in our world with its complicated mobility structures needs additional means of 11 transport with high capacity and flexibility. These needs can be met by a perfect system of public transport by taxis, collectortaxis, buses, trams and trains on the one side and car sharing and hire a car systems on the other side. And freight transport should be organised in a similar way, with a flexible system of lorries, goods buses, goods trams and goods trains. A decentralised system of freight transport nodes with modern equipment for communication between all elements of the fright transport system will provide a high flexibility and market orientation. The private car after a system innovation as described would not have its classical role as a short distance means which is used from 40-50% for trips of less than 5 km distance, even 30% less than 3 km. If car traffic is mainly used as a substitute for walking and cycling this is crazy. That is the reason why walking and cycling are massively underestimated in the scenarios of conventional planners. After 40 years of steady decrease no one can imagine that there will be a renaissance of walking and cycling. But many case studies show that massive changes to the right side are possible.

Car free life is no utopia. In Europe most regions and towns until the 50ties had very little car traffic. 80% of the existing motorpowered vehicles in that time were trucks for fright transport and buses for passenger transport. The private car was an exception in that time. Most countries in the third world even today have very little car traffic. All over the world only about 10 % of the population have easy access to private car use. So the question must be allowed. Why should the very inefficient mobility style of western countries, which is a copy of the American way of life be the model for a global society. The hope of two or three generations of politicians that massive car promotion would lead to modern flexible mobility systems with high comfort and without any problems has been frustrated. Congestion governs in all parts of the world which have introduced mass motorization. Los Angeles, Bankogk, Sao Paulo or Mexiko City are the "menetekels" of misdevelopment. Today much better means of modern mobility have been developed. Modern public transport can work much more efficient and flexible. Modern cycling can produce high cost and space efficiency and great pleasure for cyclists. Walking can again be the basic mode of urban life if planners, architects and street design take walking seriously as an important means of transport. Only politicians and managers with little fantasy will set a taboo to car free life.

4.9 Change of car fixated legislation Present legislation in most European countries is fixed on maximum car comfort and maximum freedom of driving. Architects and planners are forced by building and planning laws to provide good car access and maximum parking facilities in all housing, shopping, leisure, tourism and business projects. Free access for private cars is seen as a basic right of way. This legislation historically was meant to be necessary in a time when mayors, citizens and architects still didn't want to waste much money for the car infrastructure. This was in the 20ties and 30ties. In the same time the fuel tax and building tax was established to bring enough money to the public to engage enthusiastically and steadily in the construction and expansion of car oriented streets and parking facilities. No comparable regulations have been made in planning and building legislation and taxation in respect to walking, cycling and public transport. A policy which really wants to decrease car traffic will have to change car oriented legislation soon. And a modern legislation will have to change as well all regulations according to driver behavior. A domestication of car traffic by law is needed, the protection of safety, environment and social and urban quality needs a new legal basis.

4.10 Car Sharing as an important strategy The most complicated strategy has to be defined for existing, old built up areas. Most car free projects concentrate on new development areas. But the highest rate of car free households can be found in old areas close to the city centres. Though private motorization is not high in these areas the disturbances from car traffic are high because massive radial car Traffic flows on the way to the city centre and the many offices invade these areas. They have the highest noise and and the poorest walking and cycling conditions. And they have massive parking problems, because the historical street design was shaped before mass motorization and most houses do not have garages. So in these areas the first car sharing projects started in the 80ties, because they make the most efficient use of cars and public space. After some years of experiments car sharing has become a standard element for modern transport planning. It has proved much more successful in solving parking problems compared to the classical strategy building new parking garages. An underground parking space costs some 20.000 to 30.000 Euro. And there is little space to locate a new garage somewhere nearby. And most people would oppose a new garage because of its bad effects on traffic development and environment. So in this "desperate" situation some innovative developers started the first car sharing projects in Zurich, Berlin, Freiburg, Münster. Again Svizerland is the most active innovator. A new firm mobility has been formed by two earlier separate car sharing firms with local mobility service for more than 240 different stations at 76 different places. The growth rates are impressive. Mobility co-operates with the Swiss rail company and many local public transport firms. And it co-operates with the international hire a car firm Hertz. Mobility service can be used all over Europe since in most countries now car sharing firms have been founded, which cooperate on the European level. In the Swiss towns of Basel, Bern and Zürich a new trend comes up live without cars. Preferably rich households which live in central locations want to get rid of the many problems private car ownership produces in highly congested areas. Instead of moving out of town they stay at central locations but they prefer a mobility without cars. They make use of the 12 excellent quality of Swiss public transport and participate in the renaissance of walking and cycling. They might be trend setters for a new life and mobility style which produces more pleasure and less frustration, more liveability and less stress, risk and pollution. In Germany 10.000.000 cars drive less than 5.000 km per year, they are "immobile cars", many of them being used only 1-2 times a month. For these car owners car sharing would be much more attractive and about 1.000.000 car sharing cars would easily serve the mobility needs of these car owners. Instead of investing continuously more and more money into the expansion of the car infrastructure and the "fleet" or "flood" of cars a car reduction strategy would be much more reasonable. Instead of paying tax subsidies for car owners a subsidy for those who don't have a car or want to get rid of their car would be much more suitable. Mass motorization has to come to an end. For this strategy car sharing could lead to a form of "public cars" as an basic element of public transport infrastructure.

4.11 Car free societies everywhere. Which strategy works best? The German President Rau said according to solving traffic problems, that he expects a competition of German cities, which one will most successful reduce car traffic. The problem is that transport policy officials in Germany don't go so far. They hesitate to say the truth, they are afraid from the opposition of car industry managers, lobbyists of commerce and drivers associations. The new German chancellor Schroeder has stated that he wants to be chancellor of all "cars". Politicians on national, Laender and local level still are blocked by their fear, car free life might be very unpopular. They don't dare to communicate the positive side of the concept: higher efficiency, better mobility, higher liveability, better environment, better urban development, higher . To continue mass motorization strategies is against innovation and modern service ideas, is seems to be comparable to the attempts to keep coal mining and steel manufacturing the basic sectors in industry. Ideas for car free life have been discussed even by some of the most important car industries. VW, BMW and Daimler-Chrysler have developed plans for public cars and car sharing, for car free cities and for an integrated mobility management with much better mobility service. Car free life must not be the privilege of some small islands. The most car dominated areas in the suburban fringe need to be included as well. This is relevant as well for suburban whole sale markets, factories etc. Some innovative projects have been installed already by developing business mobility concepts. Ciba Geigy, a chemistry firm in Basel has organised own firm bus systems, parking is restricted, a Job- Ticket has been introduced and firm cycles are available all over the area. Migros in Schaffhausen has established a car free supermarket with high design qualities. A parking space taxation for suburban locations would help very much to stop the traditional strategy to provide maximum parking space there.

4.12 Better architecture and perfect public transport for a renaissance of urban life More fantasy is needed for architecture and design of public space. If the number of cars will be reduced to half of the present figures and later even to 1/10 there would be much space for trees, green promenades, broad , lovely squares. But architects and urban designers will have to learn how to make use of these new possibilities. Streets can be rediscovered as a place for public life, art, communication, sitting or standing outside. New urban life as it is known well from car free places like Venice shall be present everywhere. Public transport has to be optimised for a better future in the car free city: as the dominant means of transport, most efficient, most city- and environment friendly, all in all the most economic. Therefore consistent local and regional traffic development planning is necessary, in which the tools for public transport are laid down in a new way. Complementary to the restricted determination in the role for the car, laws of local traffic have to secure reasonable financing of public transport, which no longer can be financed as a "waste product" of car traffic. The operators of public traffic and the responsible politicians in the local and regional parliaments have to fix the necessary priorities for attractive networks, timetables and fares. Carfree cities are in regard to these necessities the suitable starting point for a real new trend in traffic.