Log in
Reading the NewsB2  Environment

Environment · Reading practice · B2

Why more cities are saying no to cars

From a small Spanish city to the capital of Norway, city centres are being redesigned for people instead of traffic.

By Levoop · 4-minute read · 374 words · Tap the underlined words to see what they mean

People walking along a wide pedestrian shopping street
Without cars, streets fill with people walking and shopping.Photo: Joergelman / Pixabay

For most of the twentieth century, cities were built around the car. Wide roads, huge car parks and busy became a normal part of urban life. Today, a growing number of cities are trying to do the opposite: to give the streets back to the people who walk on them.

One of the best-known examples is Pontevedra, a small city in north-west Spain. In 1999, the local government decided to most private cars from the centre. Instead of traffic jams, the old streets filled with cafés, children playing and people walking. Shop owners were worried at first that they would lose customers, but the centre is now busier than ever, and the city has won international awards for its quality of life.

Larger cities have taken a different . Rather than closing streets completely, Oslo removed most of the parking spaces in its city centre and replaced them with benches, trees, and small parks. Without anywhere to park, many drivers simply chose to come by bus, by train or by bike. Paris, meanwhile, has built hundreds of kilometres of new cycle lanes over the last decade.

Supporters of these changes point to several benefits. Fewer cars mean cleaner air and less noise, which can have a real effect on people’s health. Streets also become safer, especially for children and older people. And when people walk or cycle, they tend to stop, look around and spend money in local shops.

However, the changes are not always popular. Critics argue that car-free centres can make life harder for people who live outside the city, for those with , and for businesses that depend on . For this reason, most cities allow exceptions for residents, emergency vehicles and delivery vans at certain times of the day.

Experts agree that banning cars on its own is not enough. For the idea to work, people need good alternatives: frequent and public transport, safe routes for bicycles and pleasant spaces where they actually want to spend time. Without these, a car-free zone can quickly become an empty one.

What is clear is that the is no longer about whether cities should reduce traffic, but about how quickly and how far they should go.

Reading the News · levoop.com/reading-the-news/cities-saying-no-to-cars · More articles and Cambridge exam practice at www.levoop.com

Go to the questions ↓

Check your understanding

Choose the best answer. Every answer comes with an explanation.

1. What happened in the centre of Pontevedra after private cars were banned?

2. How was Oslo’s approach different from Pontevedra’s?

3. According to supporters, why can fewer cars be good for local shops?

4. Why do most cities allow some exceptions?

5. What is the main point of the last two paragraphs?

Useful expressions

  • give (something) back to – return something to the people it belongs to
    “to give the streets back to the people who walk on them”
  • point to (something) – mention something as proof
    “Supporters of these changes point to several benefits.”
  • on its own – alone, without anything else
    “banning cars on its own is not enough”

Key words

  • roundabouts: places where roads meet and cars go round in a circle
  • ban: officially say that something is not allowed
  • historic: old and important in history
  • approach: a way of dealing with a situation or problem
  • cycle lanes: parts of a road only for bicycles
  • disabilities: physical or mental conditions that make some activities difficult
  • deliveries: the act of taking goods to people’s homes or shops
  • affordable: not too expensive
  • debate: a discussion in which people give different opinions

Answer key

  1. It became more lively and attractive. – B: the streets filled with cafés, children and people walking, and the centre is busier than ever. Shop owners worried at first, but they did not lose customers.
  2. It mainly reduced the number of places to park. – C: “Rather than closing streets completely, Oslo removed most of the parking spaces.”
  3. People who walk or cycle are more likely to stop and buy things. – A: “when people walk or cycle, they tend to stop, look around and spend money in local shops.”
  4. Because some groups would find it very difficult without them. – C: critics say car-free centres are harder for people outside the city, people with disabilities and businesses with deliveries.
  5. Banning cars only works if there are good alternatives. – B: “banning cars on its own is not enough. For the idea to work, people need good alternatives.”

Keep reading

TechnologyB2

The science of why we can’t stop scrolling

4-minute readWorkB2

Four days a week: what happened when companies tried it

4-minute readWorkB2

Laptop on the beach: the rise of the digital nomad

4-minute read

Preparing for the exam? Practise the B2 First Reading paper, part by part, with every answer explained.