For most of the twentieth century, city planners built their towns around one thing: the car. Wide roads, vast car parks and multi-lane motorways were seen as symbols of progress and prosperity. The more space a city gave to cars, the more modern it was considered to be. In recent years, however, a growing number of experts have begun to question this approach, arguing that cities designed for cars are not always good places for people to live.

The problems caused by heavy traffic are well documented. Cars are a major source of air pollution, which damages the health of millions of city residents and contributes to climate change. Traffic jams waste enormous amounts of time and money, and busy roads can divide communities, making streets noisy and dangerous. Perhaps most importantly, when a city devotes most of its space to vehicles, it has less room for the parks, squares and pavements that make urban life pleasant.

In response, some cities have started to rethink the way they are organised. A number of European cities have introduced “low-traffic neighbourhoods”, where through-traffic is restricted and priority is given to people walking and cycling. Others have built extensive networks of cycle lanes, improved public transport, or charged drivers a fee to enter the busiest areas. The results, supporters claim, have been impressive: cleaner air, quieter streets, and city centres that people actually want to spend time in.

Naturally, these changes are not without controversy. Some drivers feel that they are being unfairly punished, particularly those who have no realistic alternative to using a car. Small business owners sometimes worry that restricting traffic will drive away customers, although studies frequently show the opposite to be true. Critics also point out that not everyone is able to cycle or walk long distances, and that public transport must be genuinely reliable before people will give up their cars.

What seems clear is that there is no single solution that will work everywhere. A dense historic city has very different needs from a spread-out modern one, and a policy that succeeds in one place may fail in another. Nevertheless, the underlying idea is gaining ground: that streets belong to people, not just to vehicles, and that the healthiest, most liveable cities are those that strike a sensible balance between the two. The car is unlikely to disappear, but its century of unquestioned dominance may finally be coming to an end.