Carfree Design Manual

Todd Litman's picture

As planners, one of our roles is to help stretch the scope of what is considered possible. For example, between 1950 and 2000 most development was highly automobile-dependent, based on the assumption that almost all travel would be by personal automobile and other modes were relatively unimportant. This pattern is so well established that many people have difficulty imagining anything different. It is useful to help people understand the full range of options available, from automobile dependency to carfree communities.

Although carfree sounds radical, it was actually the goal of much suburban development, which was intended to create isolated suburban campuses where people can park their vehicles and walk through bucolic landscapes between buildings, and quiet cul de sacs where traffic impacts are minimized. This approach fails in many ways – the dispersed land use pattern that results creates more vehicle traffic with significant economic, social and environmental costs, but the basic desire for carfree environments is actually widely established. Most people would probably agree that carfree development is a nice idea, they simply have no idea how to achieve it.

A new book, Carfree Design Manual by J.H. Crawford, provides specific guidance for creating carfree communities. Crawford has long been a proponent of carfree planning: he wrote the book Carfree Cities in 2000, and maintains the website.




Crawford's book provides detailed discussion of carfree design concepts, that is, why carfree communities are desirable for economic, social and environmental reasons; their historic context; and the principles by which they can be implemented. His analysis begins with the most general concepts and works down to economic and engineering details, such as how to design communities (involve users), the best method to allocate land (use the Internet to allow households to bid for the properties that best reflect their preferences for location and building type), and to where to locate utility lines (bury them). Many of his ideas are insightful and well argued, although he may provide too much incidental detail for many readers.

Crawford draws extensively from previous urban designers, particularly Christopher Alexander, including A Pattern Language and the more recent series, The Nature of Order. He explores patterns related to building, street and neighborhood design.

Crawford's ideal is based on medieval European cities, particularly Venice, Italian hilltowns, and other urban communities that developed prior to automobiles and elevators, and so have walkable boulevards radiating from plazas, four- to six-story buildings with housing above commercial constructed around central courtyards, and abundant civic amenities including neighborhood parks and local markets. To these he adds high quality rail transit systems, an efficient freight distribution system, and state-of-the-art underground utilities.

Crawford is a designer's designer, so every detail of the book is carefully considered and explained. It contains hundreds of illustrations and photos, many by Crawford himself, others based on his extensive collection of old postcards with photos of street scenes, urban skylines and buildings. These images are used to considerable advantage, described and discussed in the text to illustrate concepts and tell stories.

Planning practitioners should find plenty of inspiration in the book, but are likely to be frustrated by the lack of practical guidance for dealing with common planning problems. Crawford has strong opinions: he insists on totally car free cities with only grudging respect for New Urbanism or other incremental change. Much of his analysis assumes greenfield development: a parcel of land upon which a new neighborhood or entire city will be built, controlled by a central authority that has virtually unlimited control of urban design and management. There is little guidance for planners in existing communities who may want to support incremental change toward more multi-modal development. Such neighborhoods could be called "car light," but are usaully described as walkable communities or transit oriented development.

There is plenty of evidence that many people do want to drive less, rely more on walking, cycling and public transit, and live in more accessible, mixed-use communities, the sort of traditional neighborhoods people associate older small towns; unfortunately, just the sort of towns that often lost population and jobs due to centralization of employment and services. Ironically, the best current examples of these concepts in North America are artificial amusement parks, such as Disney World, which have very walkable streets, attractive (mostly) human scale buildings, convenient and attractive public transit, and underground utilities, but lack true community and diversity.

Despite these weaknesses I recommend the Carfree Design Manual, even for planning professionals not currently building car free cities, both as a stimulant for creative thinking and because it is a truly beautiful book.
Todd Litman is the executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute.



Why the either/or focus?

The problem I see with Crawford's approach and that of many others is need to make this an either/or, one size fits all proposition. Carfree could make perfect sense under the right conditions (local, regional and beyond). But in other cases it might not be realistic at all. The planning community needs to move closer to a more whole systems-based approach that begins with a comprehensive understanding of conditions (immediate and emergent) at scale. Carfree does not do this. New Urbanism does not do this well either. We need to resist the urge to jump right to solution before we fully understand the conditions we are dealing with. Many of these conditions are place specific. There are many people (planners and others) out there taking a whole systems approach to places. The Resilient Futures Network ( for example, is an international network of practitioners that are working in communities to do just that. There are others as well. Linear, black or white, my way not their way, thinking will not help communities with the challenges they are facing. We need new thinking.

inducement to carfree

I go out to my garage, get into a warm car, drive someplace and find a nice garage, get out in my nice shoes and go do whatever I want to or have to do. I take my burden or catch back to the garage, drive back to my garage, walk into the laundry-room from the garage (that's the worst part of the trip, the ordeal, that laundry room) and rush through it into the comfort of home. Compete with that?

Why not? Let's expand the principle from home! I'm gonna wanna wear these shoes! Look at that weather! So stop the weather from spoiling my walk or my bike tour or my little electric person-mover ride. What does it take? They make transparent bus stops, but no way to get to them in comfort.

There's a lot of area out there for people to walk on and ride peacefully on. And all this can be completely enclosed, with a nice wide sombrero brim, and with solar collectors to power the comfort and security hardware. It can be taken from everyone's door, except where the doors are too few per klick, so you have to take it from a carpark. It can support a meter of snow, even slanted to take the most sun, so it doesn't have to be removed very often, and the snow won't get as dirty up there. Covering this much area will reduce some cost considerable.

But how to cross streets? The roof can be very broad over a crosswalk, but still cars are messy creatures, so to perfect this you have to raise it up over the cars or buses or whatever weighs too much for nice places. Make the whole system elevated since it is not very heavy, and while there, make it flat for the whole stretch to conserve electric charges and cyclists' endurance.

In simple terms, make it comfortable to walk or bicycle or take the electric toy and I will look at the car in a new light.

If we make a flat enclosed walk-bike-eltoy way it will have about three levels. Local, up or down once to the better shopping/pleasure center, and then up or down to the big city walk. And consider that there is no real reason for people to arrive at street level. Where they arrive will be prime real estate. This enclosure can go through buildings. It is smart to take as many people off the ground as possible.

Finally a question. Has anyone seen a study of city buildings joined together to move as one, or to not move at all? Building sway is an impediment to cheap connecting enclosures. When a city starts it doesn't start with this potential. A tall building is by itself, so it is conceived that way. It matters, in a mature city, that buildings can be connected/accessed at any level.


think of Earth as uninhabitable to start with

Prepare for the AICP* Exam

Join the thousands of students who have utilized the Planetizen AICP* Exam Preparation Class to prepare for the American Planning Association's AICP* exam.
Starting at $245

Essential Readings in Urban Planning

Planning on taking the AICP* Exam? Register for Planetizen's AICP * Exam Preparation Course to save $25.
T-shirt with map of Chicago

Show your city pride

Men's Ultrasoft CityFabric© tees. Six cities available.
 Blockitecture Building Block Set - Garden City Series

Just In! Get the Garden City Expansion

New from Blockitecture! Create towers, cities, and dwellings with this set of architectural building blocks.