the best and worst cities... ...For getting around without a car.

[Riverman]

Car Dependency Scorecard
Where you live, how easy is it to get around without a car?

If public transport is sparse, settlements are poorly planned and pedestrians and cyclists are squeezed off the roads, it can be very difficult indeed.

We've compared cities up and down the country to find out how car dependent they are.

Read our 2010 Car Dependency Scorecard in full (PDF, 2.5MB)

Cities by rank: least to most car dependent

1. Nottingham
2. London
3. Brighton and Hove
4. Manchester
5. Liverpool
6. Newcastle
7. Cambridge
8. Birmingham
9. Plymouth
10. Southampton
11. Sunderland
12. Leicester
13. Bristol
14. Leeds
14. Coventry
16. Sheffield
17. Luton
18. Peterborough
19. Milton Keynes

What do you think of our rankings? How would you rank the place where you live? Have your say

The least car-dependent cities

1. http://Nottingham

Nottingham came top of the cities surveyed due to scoring well in the majority of the indicators measured. It ranked highly for factors such as bus patronage, satisfaction with bus services and low car use for the school run. As well as having an efficient bus service, the new expanding tram system is now used by 10 million passengers a year. Other positive moves include improving accessibility, routing buses on uncongested bus only roads and smart ticketing. Future plans include extending the tram systems and modernising the existing rail network.

2. http://London

It is no surprise that London is one of the top three cities. In fact, with its high density of residential development and well-funded public transport, it is more of a surprise it has not reached the top spot. This possibly reflects the fact that while Inner London has extremely low car dependence, outer boroughs are more car reliant. Most Londoners make use of a wide network of sustainable travel options including tube, buses, trains and boats. While transport can be overcrowded at peak times, services are mainly fast, frequent and run at flexible times. London has the lowest number of car commuters and cycling is growing dramatically.

3. http://Brighton and Hove

Brighton and Hove is supportive of sustainable transport. Our research shows high levels of bus patronage and good levels of satisfaction about bus services and local transport information. The bus service is also fairly cheap in relation to average earnings. Brighton and Hove, with a significant number of London commuting residents, has good rail links. 44 trains a day go to London Victoria. Cycling and walking could be good options as most local commuters travel under 3km to reach work. As part of the Cycling Demonstration Town programme, there has been a 27 per cent increase in the number of trips by bicycle.

The most car-dependent cities

1. http://Milton Keynes

Milton Keynes was designed for the car. Those with cars can get to work in under ten minutes, but those without a car struggle to get around. Milton Keynes’ large road network is beginning to suffer from congestion, causing increased pollution. Travelling by public transport is a poor alternative and the design of the city makes it hard to navigate quickly this way. Consequently in this research, Milton Keynes was worst for public transport, and second worst for accessibility and planning.

2. http://Peterborough

Public transport has improved over the last few years, with more frequent bus services, but this is from a very low starting point. Difficulty accessing the outskirts, particularly new out-of-town developments, has meant that this city, designed for the car, is still extremely car dependent. Cycling provision has improved greatly in recent years with investment from the Sustainable Travel Towns programme. While this has resulted in a cycling increase of 12 per cent, bus passenger increase of 35 per cent and a 9 per cent reduction in car journeys, planning for accessibility, improving customer satisfaction and ensuring good bus punctuality are essential in order to encourage people out of their cars.

3. http://Luton

Car travel has caused traffic problems, especially around the M1. The town is densely built-up with inaccessible areas, causing congestion problems during peak rush hours. Poor public transport and high car use led to Luton’s rank. Buses suffer from punctuality issues, inadequate frequencies and lack of direct services to required destinations. However, a multimillion pound busway development will ensure by 2012 more than 70,000 residents will live within walking distance of a stop.

Read our 2010 Car Dependency Scorecard in full (PDF, 2.5MB)

Have your say about our Car Dependency Scorecard

See last year's Scorecard

 

[Over The Hill]

Basingstoke would certainly be down with the other new towns at the bottom of the list. It actually fails at everything else because it is fairly good at getting cars where they want to be (unless it snows a bit). Buses do not get you where you want to be as you tend to need to get from one side to the other (rather than in or out of the middle). Cycling provision is almost non existant and what there is is useless. Most routes still push the cyclists onto the huge 3 lane roundabouts on which cars blast past you at 40mph.

Good to see the report and to look at things from that perspective and to name and shame the bad ones. Thanks for posting.

 

[Arch]

No York?

From my point of view, York is very easy to get about without a car - I don't have one, and don't need one. A large proportion of my friends and collegues don't have one either, or if they do, use it sparingly. I can't say much about the buses, since I never need to use them, but the Park and Ride service is pretty good (My mum often uses it when she comes up to visit).

The actual city centre is very compact, you can walk across it in minutes, and I don't think the edge of the suburbs is more than 10-15 minutes from the middle by bike in any direction. Lots of people cycle, and there are a fair few handy little shortcuts for cyclists and pedestrians.

 

[marinyork]

I'd imagine that York (if it was studied) probably got penalised on it's absolutely mahousive out of town shopping centres and hypermarkets - Monk's Cross, Clifton Moor and the Tescos at Askham bar and McArthur Glen for that matter. It's certainly pandered to out of town shopping sites insanely compared to other cities. If an alien looked at a map with it's very generous ring road and massive out of town shopping centres the alien would mark York down very heavily on these criteria.

That said it is very easy to get about without a car in terms of on foot, unless you're in a wheelchair providing you live somewhere like Heworth, Bootham, Fishergate, Upper Fulford and Bishy Road. If you can be arsed that is. I believe the buses in York are overpriced for what you get though. It'd get a good right up, but it's far from perfect. They also need to build more bridges.

 

[iAmiAdam]

I've used the tram four times, it's horrible. Bus service runs at silly times on weekends, and if you walk around the centre, nearly every bike has its wheels nicked if they arn't chained to the bike.

 

[Arch]

I'd imagine that York (if it was studied) probably got penalised on it's absolutely mahousive out of town shopping centres and hypermarkets - Monk's Cross, Clifton Moor and the Tescos at Askham bar and McArthur Glen for that matter. It's certainly pandered to out of town shopping sites insanely compared to other cities. If an alien looked at a map with it's very generous ring road and massive out of town shopping centres the alien would mark York down very heavily on these criteria.

Is there a city without such places? I'm sure Nottingham has them too. And actually, they all have frequent bus services going to them, on account of also being Park and Ride hubs.

But you don't need to go to them at all - I very rarely use the Tesco at Askham Bar (usually only if I'm in the area anyway), and I only cycle out to Clifton Moor because I work there one day a week. There's a perfectly good Sainsburys within 5 minutes walk of the middle of town, and a big Morrisons next door (and a Waitrose opeing soon!), and several more small Sainsburys (ex-Jacksons'), a Budgens, and a Tesco Metro coming soon at Ouse Bridge. I suppose if you want Primark and the big electrical retailers, you need the out of town places, but it's quite possible to live entirely within the city walls (or within yards of them).

 

[HJ]

Well is missed out the best city in Britain to live in, so it can't be seen as a representative sample...

 

[the_mikey]

Bristol doesn't surprise me, it has lots of public transport but the city has been expanding for years, yet the public transport provision hasn't expanded gracefully to provide for the demands of this greater Bristol area (it's possible to spend 2 and a half hours on a bus to reach a destination 15 miles from the start location) , it's also a city that is separated into three parts by it's rivers, notably the River Avon separates NorthEast from the South/West of the city, and the frome separates the North from the East, but not only rivers, but a lack of infrastructure outside of the city centre area to link these separated parts of the city forces people either travel into the centre of the city to cross the divide, or to travel out of the city, around the outside and enter the city again, direct links are not always possible!

 

[marinyork]

Is there a city without such places? I'm sure Nottingham has them too. And actually, they all have frequent bus services going to them, on account of also being Park and Ride hubs.

But you don't need to go to them at all - I very rarely use the Tesco at Askham Bar (usually only if I'm in the area anyway), and I only cycle out to Clifton Moor because I work there one day a week. There's a perfectly good Sainsburys within 5 minutes walk of the middle of town, and a big Morrisons next door (and a Waitrose opeing soon!), and several more small Sainsburys (ex-Jacksons'), a Budgens, and a Tesco Metro coming soon at Ouse Bridge. I suppose if you want Primark and the big electrical retailers, you need the out of town places, but it's quite possible to live entirely within the city walls (or within yards of them).

There isn't a city without them, but for a city of York's (small size) it sticks out like a sore thumb how many very large ones there are and all heavily car catered for they are (do a comparison with other cities). Quite a few cities have supermarkets smaller than York does too! I didn't use the big far flung supermarkets but of course plenty of people did. It's why I said you can get by easily walking if you can be bothered - many residents couldn't be bothered. As an outsider it struck me as a place of great contradictions - very flat and great for walking and cycling but a bone idle bit of the population that were stuck in their cars and clogged the place up like crazy.

I of course know the point about Sainsburys and the market in town, I used to walk there myself to do the shopping (35 mins and 20 mins walk), Morrisons wasn't completed when I was there. I used to see a few people walking along from it but even Sainsbury's had to start a car parking (refunded) charge at one bit (to uproar) which says it all. York's actually spoiled in terms of the vibrancy of it's shops, I'd agree, but despite the backslapping that goes on it's very car centric in some ways.

 

[Terpsikhore]

Lancaster doesn't appear to be on the scorecard. It's very good for getting round without a car though - mainly because the road layout is so convoluted it's horrendous to drive round there at all! I know many people with cars who still throw themselves on the mercy of the bus drivers, or lace up their walking boots and fetch an umbrella, rather than face the one-way system designed by Satan himself...

I once had a phone call from a friend, come up to visit, who'd gone round the one-way system three times and couldn't work out how to get out. The next time she came up, she took the train (and yes, I'm sure she returned it afterwards) and a pair of sensible shoes.

 

[Riverman]

One of the things which really helps Southampton is that there's a massive common that splits one side of the city in half. It's simply faster for some residents to cycle across the common rather than drive around it.

 

[marinyork]

One of the things which really helps Southampton is that there's a massive common that splits one side of the city in half. It's simply faster for some residents to cycle across the common rather than drive around it.

At least you're allowed to cycle through it. Equivalent places round here you aren't. Often means long re-routing along complicated and nasty routes.

 

[Riverman]

At least you're allowed to cycle through it. Equivalent places round here you aren't. Often means long re-routing along complicated and nasty routes.

You are but there's supposed to be a speed limit of 5mph. It's hard to stick to that though as it's downhill on the way back and it's possible to pick up some speed as the main path that cuts across it is quite straight, although this helps to see people.

 

[Crankarm]

Car Dependency Scorecard
Where you live, how easy is it to get around without a car?

If public transport is sparse, settlements are poorly planned and pedestrians and cyclists are squeezed off the roads, it can be very difficult indeed.

We've compared cities up and down the country to find out how car dependent they are.

Read our 2010 Car Dependency Scorecard in full (PDF, 2.5MB)

Cities by rank: least to most car dependent

1. Nottingham
2. London
3. Brighton and Hove
4. Manchester
5. Liverpool
6. Newcastle
7. Cambridge
8. Birmingham
9. Plymouth
10. Southampton
11. Sunderland
12. Leicester
13. Bristol
14. Leeds
14. Coventry
16. Sheffield
17. Luton
18. Peterborough
19. Milton Keynes

What do you think of our rankings? How would you rank the place where you live? Have your say

The least car-dependent cities

1. Nottingham

Nottingham came top of the cities surveyed due to scoring well in the majority of the indicators measured. It ranked highly for factors such as bus patronage, satisfaction with bus services and low car use for the school run. As well as having an efficient bus service, the new expanding tram system is now used by 10 million passengers a year. Other positive moves include improving accessibility, routing buses on uncongested bus only roads and smart ticketing. Future plans include extending the tram systems and modernising the existing rail network.

2. London

It is no surprise that London is one of the top three cities. In fact, with its high density of residential development and well-funded public transport, it is more of a surprise it has not reached the top spot. This possibly reflects the fact that while Inner London has extremely low car dependence, outer boroughs are more car reliant. Most Londoners make use of a wide network of sustainable travel options including tube, buses, trains and boats. While transport can be overcrowded at peak times, services are mainly fast, frequent and run at flexible times. London has the lowest number of car commuters and cycling is growing dramatically.

3. Brighton and Hove

Brighton and Hove is supportive of sustainable transport. Our research shows high levels of bus patronage and good levels of satisfaction about bus services and local transport information. The bus service is also fairly cheap in relation to average earnings. Brighton and Hove, with a significant number of London commuting residents, has good rail links. 44 trains a day go to London Victoria. Cycling and walking could be good options as most local commuters travel under 3km to reach work. As part of the Cycling Demonstration Town programme, there has been a 27 per cent increase in the number of trips by bicycle.

The most car-dependent cities

1. Milton Keynes

Milton Keynes was designed for the car. Those with cars can get to work in under ten minutes, but those without a car struggle to get around. Milton Keynes’ large road network is beginning to suffer from congestion, causing increased pollution. Travelling by public transport is a poor alternative and the design of the city makes it hard to navigate quickly this way. Consequently in this research, Milton Keynes was worst for public transport, and second worst for accessibility and planning.

2. Peterborough

Public transport has improved over the last few years, with more frequent bus services, but this is from a very low starting point. Difficulty accessing the outskirts, particularly new out-of-town developments, has meant that this city, designed for the car, is still extremely car dependent. Cycling provision has improved greatly in recent years with investment from the Sustainable Travel Towns programme. While this has resulted in a cycling increase of 12 per cent, bus passenger increase of 35 per cent and a 9 per cent reduction in car journeys, planning for accessibility, improving customer satisfaction and ensuring good bus punctuality are essential in order to encourage people out of their cars.

3. Luton

Car travel has caused traffic problems, especially around the M1. The town is densely built-up with inaccessible areas, causing congestion problems during peak rush hours. Poor public transport and high car use led to Luton’s rank. Buses suffer from punctuality issues, inadequate frequencies and lack of direct services to required destinations. However, a multimillion pound busway development will ensure by 2012 more than 70,000 residents will live within walking distance of a stop.

Read our 2010 Car Dependency Scorecard in full (PDF, 2.5MB)

Have your say about our Car Dependency Scorecard

See last year's Scorecard

Errrr ................ since when was Nottingham beside the seaside? I don't recall seeing signs to the beach on the ring road ............

I wouldn't like to cycle in Nottingham as one would too much at risk of receiving a puncture ie being shot as it is the gun capital of the UK AFAIK. It's bad enough driving around the place let alone cycling. It's full of loons and ganstas.

As for Brighton and Hove LoL!!! Cycling is good if you want to cycle along the sea front although I am sure there are restrictions prohibiting cycling at any time, but if you want to cycle around the town go further afield there are some pretty serious hills to cycle up for instance up to the station from the Old Steyne or up to Seven Dials. Somehow I can't see the average lardy Southerner taking this option.

Peterborough is pretty good for getting around by bike certainly much better than Cambridge.

Who compiled this report as it appears to be cack ................... ?

 

[rich p]

Crankarm is quite right as far as Brighton is concerned. The city (as we now are since we became conjoined with fragrant Hove ) is built on several valleys and the burbs are rarely cycled by anyone bar tough cookies and POBs who roll down and push up. They tend not to try a second time.
The sole visible 'benefits' of being designated a cycling city are 2 ludicrous and dangerous, but highly visble, cycle paths. I think the high viz bit is the main reason behind them.