Car Dependency Is Killing UK Towns—And We're Still Building More Roads

Walk through any UK town centre and the picture is the same: empty shop units, traffic-clogged roads, and a pervasive sense of decline. Meanwhile, on the outskirts, vast retail parks surrounded by car parks are thriving. This is not an accident. It is the result of decades of policy that prioritised cars over people, roads over public transport, and suburban sprawl over walkable communities. The result is towns that are hostile to human life, air that is dangerous to breathe, and a generation of children who cannot play outside because the streets are too dangerous. And we are still building more roads.

This is not inevitable. It is a policy choice, and it is killing our towns.

The numbers: car dependency is extreme and getting worse

The UK has one of the highest rates of car dependency in Europe. According to the Department for Transport's National Travel Survey, 68% of all trips in England are made by car. For trips between two and five miles—distances easily cyclable—the figure is over 60%. Even for trips under a mile, which take 15-20 minutes to walk, around 20% are made by car.

This is not because British people are uniquely lazy. It is because we have designed our towns and cities to make driving the only practical option. Shops, schools, and workplaces are spread out, connected by roads but not by safe walking or cycling routes. Public transport is infrequent, expensive, and unreliable. The result is that even people who would prefer not to drive have no real alternative.

The consequences are visible everywhere. Air pollution from vehicles causes an estimated 28,000 to 36,000 premature deaths per year in the UK, according to research by the Royal College of Physicians. Children growing up near busy roads have higher rates of asthma and impaired lung development. Town centres are dying as retail shifts to out-of-town car parks, with high street vacancy rates exceeding 14% nationally and much higher in some regions.

"We have built an environment where you need a car to live a normal life, and then we act surprised when everyone drives. This is not a market outcome. It is a planning failure." — A view increasingly reflected in urban planning and public health research.

The Dutch comparison: it doesn't have to be this way

The Netherlands is often held up as a cycling paradise, and it is—but it was not always. In the 1970s, Dutch cities were as car-dominated as British ones. Traffic deaths were rising, town centres were being demolished for roads, and air quality was terrible. Then they made a different choice.

Dutch cities redesigned their streets to prioritise walking and cycling. They built separated cycle lanes, reduced speed limits in residential areas, and invested in public transport. They pedestrianised town centres and made driving less convenient while making other modes easier. The result is that over 25% of all trips in the Netherlands are made by bike, and Dutch towns are vibrant, safe, and economically successful.

This was not easy or cheap. It required political courage, upfront investment, and a willingness to challenge car-centric assumptions. But it worked. Dutch children cycle to school. Dutch high streets are thriving. Dutch air quality is better, and Dutch people are healthier. The UK could do the same. We choose not to.

The spending mismatch: roads versus public transport

The UK government spent £27 billion on roads in 2023-24, compared to £18 billion on public transport, according to Department for Transport figures. This is not a neutral allocation. It is a policy choice to prioritise driving over alternatives.

Every new road induces demand—more road capacity leads to more driving, which leads to more congestion, which leads to calls for more roads. This is well-documented in transport economics and is known as induced demand. Building more roads does not solve congestion. It makes car dependency worse.

Meanwhile, public transport is starved of investment. Bus services outside London have been cut drastically, with over 3,000 routes reduced or withdrawn since 2010. Rail fares are among the highest in Europe. Cycling infrastructure is patchy, often dangerous, and disconnected. The result is that driving remains the only viable option for most people, even though it is expensive, polluting, and unsustainable.

The health cost: air pollution and inactivity

Air pollution from vehicles is a public health crisis. Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter from exhaust emissions are linked to respiratory disease, heart disease, and premature death. Children, the elderly, and those with existing health conditions are most vulnerable.

The Royal College of Physicians has called air pollution a "public health emergency" and called for urgent action to reduce vehicle emissions. The most effective way to do this is not cleaner cars—though that helps—but fewer cars. Electric vehicles reduce emissions, but they do not solve congestion, road danger, or the spatial problems of car dependency.

There is also the inactivity crisis. The UK has some of the lowest rates of active travel—walking and cycling for transport—in Europe. This contributes to obesity, cardiovascular disease, and poor mental health. Designing towns around cars means people do not walk or cycle as part of daily life, and the health consequences are severe.

The economic case: high streets versus retail parks

Car dependency is killing high streets. Out-of-town retail parks, accessible only by car and surrounded by vast car parks, have drawn retail spending away from town centres. The result is empty shops, declining footfall, and a loss of community focus.

The irony is that pedestrianised high streets and areas with good cycling infrastructure consistently outperform car-dominated areas economically. Studies by Sustrans and others have found that people who walk or cycle to town centres visit more frequently and spend more over time than those who drive. Drivers make fewer, larger trips and leave quickly. Pedestrians and cyclists linger, browse, and return.

Yet planning policy continues to favour car-dependent development. New housing estates are built with no shops, schools, or services within walking distance. New retail and leisure developments are required to provide vast car parks, making them inaccessible to anyone without a car. This is not market-driven. It is the result of planning rules that prioritise car access over everything else.

The safety crisis: children cannot play outside

One of the starkest indicators of car dependency is that children cannot play outside. In the 1970s, most children walked or cycled to school and played in the street. Today, the majority are driven, and playing in the street is seen as dangerous.

This is not because parents are overprotective. It is because the streets are genuinely dangerous. Traffic speeds are high, cycle lanes are rare or poorly designed, and drivers are often inattentive. The result is that children grow up with no independence, no opportunity to develop spatial awareness and risk assessment, and no connection to their local area.

This is a loss of childhood, and it is a direct result of prioritising cars over people.

What needs to change

The solutions are well-known and proven to work in other countries.

First, reallocate road space. Reduce lanes for cars and create protected cycle lanes and wider pavements. This is not anti-car. It is pro-choice. People should be able to walk and cycle safely.

Second, invest in public transport. Frequent, affordable, reliable buses and trains are essential. This requires sustained funding, not the stop-start approach of recent decades.

Third, redesign planning rules. New developments should be required to include local shops, schools, and services within walking distance. Car parking requirements should be reduced or removed, and cycle parking should be mandatory.

Fourth, reduce speed limits in residential areas. 20mph limits save lives, reduce noise, and make streets more pleasant for walking and cycling.

Fifth, pedestrianise town centres. Remove through traffic, create public spaces, and prioritise people over cars. The economic and social benefits are well-documented.

The political barriers

The reason this has not happened is not technical or economic. It is political. Car drivers are a vocal and organised constituency. Any proposal to reallocate road space or reduce car access is met with fierce opposition, often amplified by media that frame it as a "war on motorists."

This framing is dishonest. Reducing car dependency is not a war on anyone. It is about creating towns and cities that are liveable, healthy, and sustainable. Most people, if given a real choice, would prefer to walk or cycle short trips rather than drive. But that choice does not exist because we have designed it out.

The bottom line

Car dependency is not inevitable. It is the result of policy choices: to prioritise roads over public transport, cars over people, and suburban sprawl over walkable communities. The consequences are visible in dying high streets, dangerous air, and children who cannot play outside. The solutions are proven and well-understood: invest in public transport, reallocate road space, redesign planning rules, and prioritise people over cars. The Netherlands did it. We can too. The question is whether we have the political courage to choose liveable towns over car dependency.