Norway's capital is the latest city to declare war on cars(economist.com)
economist.com
Norway's capital is the latest city to declare war on cars
https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/05/30/norways-capital-is-the-latest-city-to-declare-war-on-cars
69 comments
In Denmark and Germany public transportation is not always that good, they rely heavily on bikes. For instance in Madrid you can rely 100% on a nice, on time, metro system. I hope it’s different in Norway and that they also have public transport that can compete with cars. Of course bikes are good, but not all of us are ready to bike 20-30 mins to work every day in the snow during winter, or hot days during summer.
The tubes are good in Oslo. Runs like clockwork as far as I have seen.
Buses are ok, not always according to schedule but so frequent during the day it hardly matters to me.
Trains are a bit of both:
- most regional ones are brand new
- the other aren't to bad either: old fashioned but clean and well maintained. In fact a number of commuters prefer the older ones.
- they are expensive (if you teamed up with three others you'd finance a Tesla in 10 years I guess. The downside is you can't expect everyone to go to work and home at the exact same time every day or even stay in their job for ten years)
- while they might be reasonably precise for weeks on end it is never a surprise when they are delayed.
- information is poor (my guess is because they have to pay alternative transport if they are more than 30 minutes delayed so they'll try to avoid announcing delays as long as possible. Again this is just my guess.)
- the commuter trains are always crowded in the Oslo area. Sometimes they are so crowded you literally cannot move around. Having seen and read about stadium fires and other disasters involving crowds I wonder how this is even allowed.
Buses are ok, not always according to schedule but so frequent during the day it hardly matters to me.
Trains are a bit of both:
- most regional ones are brand new
- the other aren't to bad either: old fashioned but clean and well maintained. In fact a number of commuters prefer the older ones.
- they are expensive (if you teamed up with three others you'd finance a Tesla in 10 years I guess. The downside is you can't expect everyone to go to work and home at the exact same time every day or even stay in their job for ten years)
- while they might be reasonably precise for weeks on end it is never a surprise when they are delayed.
- information is poor (my guess is because they have to pay alternative transport if they are more than 30 minutes delayed so they'll try to avoid announcing delays as long as possible. Again this is just my guess.)
- the commuter trains are always crowded in the Oslo area. Sometimes they are so crowded you literally cannot move around. Having seen and read about stadium fires and other disasters involving crowds I wonder how this is even allowed.
What are tubes?
Underground rail-type mass transit.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tube&t=fpas&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tube&t=fpas&ia=web
> In Denmark and Germany public transportation is not always that good, they rely heavily on bikes
Are you really implying that in these countries many people use bikes because the public transport is not good enough ? In Spain nobody (?) uses bikes because the public transport is perfect ? Do you have sources for both or is this just your very subjective opinion ?
Are you really implying that in these countries many people use bikes because the public transport is not good enough ? In Spain nobody (?) uses bikes because the public transport is perfect ? Do you have sources for both or is this just your very subjective opinion ?
I lived in Spain, Denmark and Germany. Let’s take Munich Germany as that’s where I live now. While bikes are definitely a cultural thing here, many people definitely prefer them because the public transport doesn’t get you easily to all places and can be very unreliable during work days (especially the sbahn trains). You also have situations where biking gets you door to door in 30 mins and public transport in 1 hour (to do 8km). Of course after a couple of years of work people buy cars anyways here, I think a lot of that is due to the not so good public transport. Of course Munich public transport is light years better than Naples where I am from, but unfortunately it’s still not good enough to replace bikes or cars in many situations.
Germany: I bike to work (30mins), but on rainy and snowy days I take the car (15mins). Public transport is available, but takes 1h with very high unreliability (often you wait half an hour for that bus).
So I tend to agree. Public transport is good as long as your work is in the city center, but all the big employers are in a small radius around the city and hard to reach.
So I tend to agree. Public transport is good as long as your work is in the city center, but all the big employers are in a small radius around the city and hard to reach.
Do you view bikes as an inferior form of transport?
I think the main issue with bikes is that they are seen as inferior by the transport administration. For instance if there is heavy snow they’ll clean up the car roads but not necessarily the bike ones. Also many times car roads are straightforward but bike ones are hard to figure out. Add to that that many work places don’t have showers or changing rooms and you tell me how this is practical for work commute (which is 80% of the transport I do).
That's an issue I experience as well. What some cities try to sell as bike infrastructure is a joke. Wher I live in Vienna there's bike lanes BETWEEN two lanes of cars (at least two lanes going in the same direction) with no physical separation between car and bike lane. How this madness ever came into being is beyond me.
> For instance if there is heavy snow they’ll clean up the car roads but not necessarily the bike ones.
Isn't that just a logistical issue though? If it snows, suddenly a huge area is affected. You would need an unreasonable fleet of cleaners to clear all pathways in time. I think they can only concentrate on the main roads, most "car" roads aren't cleared, too. But I may be off here, are there cities that clear all bike lanes?
I'm in Munich too btw., I think the bike infrastructure is pretty okay (try biking in Stuttgart)? I rarely use public transport, its just too slow and inflexible. I also don't think it can be improved to a point where it can reasonably compete with biking. And thats ok, biking is fine. Just take the bike, its more fun and healthy anyway.
Isn't that just a logistical issue though? If it snows, suddenly a huge area is affected. You would need an unreasonable fleet of cleaners to clear all pathways in time. I think they can only concentrate on the main roads, most "car" roads aren't cleared, too. But I may be off here, are there cities that clear all bike lanes?
I'm in Munich too btw., I think the bike infrastructure is pretty okay (try biking in Stuttgart)? I rarely use public transport, its just too slow and inflexible. I also don't think it can be improved to a point where it can reasonably compete with biking. And thats ok, biking is fine. Just take the bike, its more fun and healthy anyway.
Copenhagen for example prioritizes major bike lines over streets afaik.
I disagree. I lived in Copenhagen for a year and I always prefered biking over public transport.
While in part that was because of a public transport system that was inferior to my current city (Hamburg), I would still prefer better biking infrastructure over public transport.
I'm not implying that good public transport is bad, but more bikers is definitely not caused by lack of good public transport.
While in part that was because of a public transport system that was inferior to my current city (Hamburg), I would still prefer better biking infrastructure over public transport.
I'm not implying that good public transport is bad, but more bikers is definitely not caused by lack of good public transport.
> In Denmark and Germany public transportation is not always that good, they rely heavily on bikes.
I experienced the public transport system in Denmark largely as exceptionally reliable, at least in the cities. Where have you made different experiences?
The reason many people in copenhagen (and other danish cities, but none comes close to copenhagen) use bikes is that the biking infrastructure is just also exceptional.
For germany the story is indeed different (though just both - public transport and biking infra - are much worse).
I experienced the public transport system in Denmark largely as exceptionally reliable, at least in the cities. Where have you made different experiences?
The reason many people in copenhagen (and other danish cities, but none comes close to copenhagen) use bikes is that the biking infrastructure is just also exceptional.
For germany the story is indeed different (though just both - public transport and biking infra - are much worse).
> I hope it’s different in Norway and that they also have public transport that can compete with cars.
I know several people living in Oslo even with 3 kids not needing a car. But on the other hand this is only true for Oslo in Norway. Every other city/town public transport sucks. Cars are a must in all other cities.
I know several people living in Oslo even with 3 kids not needing a car. But on the other hand this is only true for Oslo in Norway. Every other city/town public transport sucks. Cars are a must in all other cities.
In the Netherlands people bike in cities because it is convenient and has good infrastructure support, while there still is a pretty good public transport system.
I very highly doubt your narrative that biking somehow is only popular because of insufficient public transport.
I very highly doubt your narrative that biking somehow is only popular because of insufficient public transport.
I ride the bike all year around, except for some times in the summer precisely because the subways tend to be full in winter.
My commute takes 17min by bike and 26 by subway, due to the stops, during rush hour. The same journey takes well over 50 min with car during that time.
i don’t take the bike over the subway because the subway is bad I take it because it is the fastest way to get there.
My commute takes 17min by bike and 26 by subway, due to the stops, during rush hour. The same journey takes well over 50 min with car during that time.
i don’t take the bike over the subway because the subway is bad I take it because it is the fastest way to get there.
It's probably irrelevant how good public transport is. It's more about the higher ups of society that are living in the city center not wanting their space being taken up by the bridge and tunnel crowd.
What bothers me is the hypocrisy of Norway. On the one hand they wage war against cars and fossil fuels domestically. On the other hand they refuse to stop exploring new oil deposits or reduce oil production and exports. They are not bothered with all this oil burnt elsewhere. They are doing very little about that.
Norway isn’t a monolith. Oslo city councilors don’t have any control over oil production/exports.
There are nation wide policies in Norway promoting green energy for example, they give incentives to electricity cars. There are policies in other cities too which is adding tolls and expensive parking etc. to discourage use of cars.
Which is great but that is nothing compared to all the oil that is exported. I get that they can’t immediately stop producing oil. but they are also not slowing and also exploring new deposits.
Which is great but that is nothing compared to all the oil that is exported. I get that they can’t immediately stop producing oil. but they are also not slowing and also exploring new deposits.
That is the right way to do things. If Norway can export oil to India, they should. Not all countries can switch away from oil as easily, and countries should let other countries to switch on their own cost and time.
I know not all countries can switch from oil easily. So I am not asking Norway to stop extracting oil together. But what I am concerned is that Norway is expanding oil exploration in the Arctic [0]. Which is a perfect example of hypocrisy.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-oil-idUSKCN1QV1OX
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-oil-idUSKCN1QV1OX
"war on cars" ? It's returning the streets to the people!
> Late last year, the government removed some 700 parking spaces from the city centre, replacing them with benches, bicycle docks and more pavement.
Great! The average parking space is 2*6 metres, so they've regained 8,400 sqm of public space!
> Late last year, the government removed some 700 parking spaces from the city centre, replacing them with benches, bicycle docks and more pavement.
Great! The average parking space is 2*6 metres, so they've regained 8,400 sqm of public space!
Rather than it be a 'war' I wish it was a sneaky game of 'musical chairs', reducing a space at a time and turning it over to more sensible use.
For instance, the street I am on is one way and lined with these tin silver box things on either side. A fair bit of the traffic is playing the game of musical chairs, as it is driving round and round looking for a space to park.
If one side was made into a bike lane then that would be a huge bonus to cyclists who should be able to get into town rather than deflected out onto a horrid ring road.
When you count the cars and when you count the bikes being inconvenienced, you wonder how it would work if there was already a bike lane there, used by locals and people on commutes.
Would my neighbours be able to petition the council to close down the bike lane in order for them to park their SUV cars there? Nope, and they would not have the organisational ability to get together to petition the council to close down the bike lane.
As things stand the car owners have squatters rights. So there is no bike lane, just a continual stream of cyclists holding up traffic by riding slowly on the tarmac remaining between the walls of steel each side of the road. Or there are cyclists bombing down the pavement (sidewalk) to piss off pedestrians. All because some people have a god given right to park their SUVs.
So unless there is some revolution the only way to reclaim such space is with a council that sneakily reclaims the spaces. One way this could be done is to mandate more clear road by side junctions for 'safety reasons'. This would benefit motorists as they could see better around the corners. So nobody could object to that. Next, do the same around private drive-ways that join the road, put more double yellow lines down. Then, when there are only a few spots left to park in the council could push the big idea and get a decent cycle lane in so 'kids could safely cycle to school'.
For instance, the street I am on is one way and lined with these tin silver box things on either side. A fair bit of the traffic is playing the game of musical chairs, as it is driving round and round looking for a space to park.
If one side was made into a bike lane then that would be a huge bonus to cyclists who should be able to get into town rather than deflected out onto a horrid ring road.
When you count the cars and when you count the bikes being inconvenienced, you wonder how it would work if there was already a bike lane there, used by locals and people on commutes.
Would my neighbours be able to petition the council to close down the bike lane in order for them to park their SUV cars there? Nope, and they would not have the organisational ability to get together to petition the council to close down the bike lane.
As things stand the car owners have squatters rights. So there is no bike lane, just a continual stream of cyclists holding up traffic by riding slowly on the tarmac remaining between the walls of steel each side of the road. Or there are cyclists bombing down the pavement (sidewalk) to piss off pedestrians. All because some people have a god given right to park their SUVs.
So unless there is some revolution the only way to reclaim such space is with a council that sneakily reclaims the spaces. One way this could be done is to mandate more clear road by side junctions for 'safety reasons'. This would benefit motorists as they could see better around the corners. So nobody could object to that. Next, do the same around private drive-ways that join the road, put more double yellow lines down. Then, when there are only a few spots left to park in the council could push the big idea and get a decent cycle lane in so 'kids could safely cycle to school'.
Good for people who find the idea of spending their free time in an ugly concrete jungle enjoyable, bad for everyone else. I would rather cut my salary half than move to a city with more than 200k people.
So stay in a small town. But those of us living in larger towns, with jobs, families, interests, obligations and involvement there, would like a humane living space too. Taking back the public space so thoughtlessly set aside for cars is a part of this.
I'd like to see that town with 199999 residents.
Unfortunately working in a small town might not be an option for everyone in the current job market. Due to that any action that makes private motoring more difficult should only happen with equal investment on public transport connections from outside the city. Nobody should be forced to live in a large city simply because all the jobs are there.
5 paces out of Oslo city limits and you're surrounded by woodlots and farming.
Easy to reach that line by public transit.
Easy to reach that line by public transit.
Returning? The whole concept of a city rests on the idea of more people traveling into it for various reasons than people living in it. People who want to live in a city profit massively from the availability of services that are economically possible due to the extreme density of customers. If you lock out individual travel (and there might be good reasons to do so) you inevitably transform your city into something else that has not existed before. That is not "returning" or "regaining" nor will the space be necessarily "public".
Whatever comes out of these modern transformations might as well leave the city centers economically deserted, or at least less attractive to their current citizen.
While I never understood the urge to live in the cities, I do understand the call for more space and in particular less car traffic from those who do live there. But they also should understand that cities do come with downsides and there is no guarantee that you can have the cake and eat it.
Whatever comes out of these modern transformations might as well leave the city centers economically deserted, or at least less attractive to their current citizen.
While I never understood the urge to live in the cities, I do understand the call for more space and in particular less car traffic from those who do live there. But they also should understand that cities do come with downsides and there is no guarantee that you can have the cake and eat it.
> Whatever comes out of these modern transformations might as well leave the city centers economically deserted, or at least less attractive to their current citizen.
All experience with cities that reduced or banned car traffic point in the other direction. Madrid for example reports a 9.5% increase in local business https://copenhagenize.eu/news-archive/2019/3/14/the-benefits...
If you’ve ever been to the Netherlands you’d also see that their city centers are far from deserted wastelands. Quite to the contrary, actually, at least the ones that I’ve been to.
> But they also should understand that cities do come with downsides and there is no guarantee that you can have the cake and eat it.
Living in the suburbs comes with downsides, too. There’s for example no inalienable right to drive your car in the city.
All experience with cities that reduced or banned car traffic point in the other direction. Madrid for example reports a 9.5% increase in local business https://copenhagenize.eu/news-archive/2019/3/14/the-benefits...
If you’ve ever been to the Netherlands you’d also see that their city centers are far from deserted wastelands. Quite to the contrary, actually, at least the ones that I’ve been to.
> But they also should understand that cities do come with downsides and there is no guarantee that you can have the cake and eat it.
Living in the suburbs comes with downsides, too. There’s for example no inalienable right to drive your car in the city.
You must be from USA. In Europe we had all the large cities before cars. And curtailing car usage doesn't lock out individual travel. You still have public transport, bicicles and such.
My urge to live in a city comes from the fact that I could get everything I need to live, by going out of my apatment for 30 minutes and walking to few nearby shops. No car needed. And I can get to various interesting entertainment venues by hopping on a bus for a 15 minutes.
My urge to live in a city comes from the fact that I could get everything I need to live, by going out of my apatment for 30 minutes and walking to few nearby shops. No car needed. And I can get to various interesting entertainment venues by hopping on a bus for a 15 minutes.
> In Europe we had all the large cities before cars. And curtailing car usage doesn't lock out individual travel. You still have public transport, bicicles and such.
First of all, public transport is not individual travel. Neither the times nor the locations nor the cost are under your control. Bicycles are individual travel, and that is why they are so relevant in modern cities, but they are neither weather-independent, nor barrier-free, nor do they provide the same utility as a car. Funnliy enough, they seem to evolve pretty much the same way cars did here in Europe by getting ever larger and more capable.
I would not be surprised if bicycles would be the next piece of individual travel that's becoming unfashionable. IMO the problem cities have with cars is not the pollution, it's the individuality that they cannot deal with. Everything individual tends to become problematic with a high enough population density. Today's 2sqm parking lot might be tomorrow's 0.5sqm bicycle stand or next week's 10sqm individual bathroom. If there shall ever be an acceptable degree of individual space consumption in a city, that city needs to define a limit on population density. Somehow I doubt that any city will ever do that, though.
First of all, public transport is not individual travel. Neither the times nor the locations nor the cost are under your control. Bicycles are individual travel, and that is why they are so relevant in modern cities, but they are neither weather-independent, nor barrier-free, nor do they provide the same utility as a car. Funnliy enough, they seem to evolve pretty much the same way cars did here in Europe by getting ever larger and more capable.
I would not be surprised if bicycles would be the next piece of individual travel that's becoming unfashionable. IMO the problem cities have with cars is not the pollution, it's the individuality that they cannot deal with. Everything individual tends to become problematic with a high enough population density. Today's 2sqm parking lot might be tomorrow's 0.5sqm bicycle stand or next week's 10sqm individual bathroom. If there shall ever be an acceptable degree of individual space consumption in a city, that city needs to define a limit on population density. Somehow I doubt that any city will ever do that, though.
> First of all, public transport is not individual travel. Neither the times nor the locations nor the cost are under your control.
Then cars are not individual travel as well. The only thing you control is time of departure (not arrival). You don't control locations because you are limited by availability of parking space. You don't control the cost because it's just a function of distance, gas prices, your car efficiency and time of travel.
Car fits you definition only if you have a parking outside of your flat and right at your destinations and there's no congestion. Even then you would not control the cost and time independently. I think your definition of individual travel is unreasonably restrictive.
> Bicycles are individual travel, and that is why they are so relevant in modern cities, but they are neither weather-independent, nor barrier-free, nor do they provide the same utility as a car.
And car in congested city does not provide same utility as a bicycle or subway. Car is not the ultimate mode of transport, just one of many, one overused and abused.
> IMO the problem cities have with cars is not the pollution
You should appreciate pollution. Recent studies show that even at 'safe' levels it significantly diminishes human intellectual capacity. This affects for example results of important exams in your life and harms your career as result of that.
Then cars are not individual travel as well. The only thing you control is time of departure (not arrival). You don't control locations because you are limited by availability of parking space. You don't control the cost because it's just a function of distance, gas prices, your car efficiency and time of travel.
Car fits you definition only if you have a parking outside of your flat and right at your destinations and there's no congestion. Even then you would not control the cost and time independently. I think your definition of individual travel is unreasonably restrictive.
> Bicycles are individual travel, and that is why they are so relevant in modern cities, but they are neither weather-independent, nor barrier-free, nor do they provide the same utility as a car.
And car in congested city does not provide same utility as a bicycle or subway. Car is not the ultimate mode of transport, just one of many, one overused and abused.
> IMO the problem cities have with cars is not the pollution
You should appreciate pollution. Recent studies show that even at 'safe' levels it significantly diminishes human intellectual capacity. This affects for example results of important exams in your life and harms your career as result of that.
That's a really interesting point you brought up there. I wanted to come up with the counter-example of Hong Kong, which is already a hyper-dense city. But, as it turns out, bikes do get pushed out there in favour of public transport:
https://www.tripsavvy.com/where-to-rent-and-ride-a-bike-in-h...
Other contemporary* cities should still implement more bike-friendly infrastructure. There's other goals which can be furthered by more people biking. Climate change and public health come to mind.
*we can worry about the problems of hyper-density when it's actually here. For most of the big western cities this is probably at least a few decades out.
https://www.tripsavvy.com/where-to-rent-and-ride-a-bike-in-h...
Other contemporary* cities should still implement more bike-friendly infrastructure. There's other goals which can be furthered by more people biking. Climate change and public health come to mind.
*we can worry about the problems of hyper-density when it's actually here. For most of the big western cities this is probably at least a few decades out.
> we can worry about the problems of hyper-density when it's actually here
I think we should actively work against hyper dense cities. Or at least have the citizens decide about how dense they want their city to become (but then they'll have to live with the consequences). Right now we are facing dense cities and try to somehow adjust the policies after the fact. That seems not ideal.
I think we should actively work against hyper dense cities. Or at least have the citizens decide about how dense they want their city to become (but then they'll have to live with the consequences). Right now we are facing dense cities and try to somehow adjust the policies after the fact. That seems not ideal.
It surely isn't ideal, but that's kind of how the world works, no?
New developments emerge and we adjust our laws to deal with the new situation in a way that society sees fit. IMHO voting on something like maximum population density policies is way too abstract of a concept for people to even have an opinion about. If it were the opposite one might think we as humans have some kind of plan going into the future... ;)
New developments emerge and we adjust our laws to deal with the new situation in a way that society sees fit. IMHO voting on something like maximum population density policies is way too abstract of a concept for people to even have an opinion about. If it were the opposite one might think we as humans have some kind of plan going into the future... ;)
> Everything individual tends to become problematic with a high enough population density. Today's 2sqm parking lot might be tomorrow's 0.5sqm bicycle stand or next week's 10sqm individual bathroom. If there shall ever be an acceptable degree of individual space consumption in a city, that city needs to define a limit on population density.
Usually money is way better at limiting than any attempts at enforcing hard limits. You just need to price things right. If market doesn't get the price correctly to include environmental costs then you can always tweak things with tax.
Usually money is way better at limiting than any attempts at enforcing hard limits. You just need to price things right. If market doesn't get the price correctly to include environmental costs then you can always tweak things with tax.
Of course it is regaining. Cities predate the car by thousands of years. Oslo itself is almost 1000 years old. The city center was built when pedestrians and the occasional horse-drawn carriage was the typical mode of transport.
Plus you're completely ignoring public transport for some reason.
Plus you're completely ignoring public transport for some reason.
I think the other comments have done it justice, but I'd just like to add that there's a lot of other means of transport than cars. America seems to lack public transport modes, but these provide access to cities without the huge footprint (space-wise and energy-wise) of cars.
I mean, it's not like individual automobiles are the only way to get around...
It might hard for some to believe, but there are huge portions of the USA where every trip begins and ends in a car.
The layout of many "cities" in the USA literally requires car transport. Residential is clustered with other residential, retail is clustered into strip malls with a vast stretches of asphalt (for parking), office parks are also clustered in low-density arrangements of flex-space (1-story buildings with a truck dock in the back). All of these places are separated not only by distances that can't be covered on foot, but also pedestrian-hostile highways and utter dismissal of public space.
And yes, schools are large and dotted across the landscape. So in addition to getting to work, by car, many families have to juggle transporting their kids to school in one direction, then go a completely different direction to get to work, repeat the process in the afternoon, and go in other directions for shopping, groceries, and other "third places".
The layout of many "cities" in the USA literally requires car transport. Residential is clustered with other residential, retail is clustered into strip malls with a vast stretches of asphalt (for parking), office parks are also clustered in low-density arrangements of flex-space (1-story buildings with a truck dock in the back). All of these places are separated not only by distances that can't be covered on foot, but also pedestrian-hostile highways and utter dismissal of public space.
And yes, schools are large and dotted across the landscape. So in addition to getting to work, by car, many families have to juggle transporting their kids to school in one direction, then go a completely different direction to get to work, repeat the process in the afternoon, and go in other directions for shopping, groceries, and other "third places".
[deleted]
> Madrid could become first European city to scrap low-emissions zone
> Region’s likely new president Isabel Díaz Ayuso believes congestion is part of city’s cultural identity
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/may/31/madrid-set-to...
you win some, you lose some.
> Region’s likely new president Isabel Díaz Ayuso believes congestion is part of city’s cultural identity
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/may/31/madrid-set-to...
you win some, you lose some.
Currently in Spain for a month vacation and I was considering if I should visit Madrid.. this makes me have little interest.
As a Spaniard, I had become reconciled with Madrid in the last years, I visit frequently it has really improved a lot. But now it's likely to become a dirty, congested den of corruption again, I don't think I will keep visiting it.
Note that the regression is still not implemented, so you can still go and enjoy it before they ruin it.
Note that the regression is still not implemented, so you can still go and enjoy it before they ruin it.
Are you not going to visit Madrid only because of views of its regional politicians or you were hoping the number of cars on the streets will be significantly reduced by time you get there? Just curious.
The PP aren’t even in power yet and when they are they won’t be able to implement it instantly. If you are in Spain at the moment this shouldn’t put you off.
OK, will not go there. I love cars and driving. It is commuting that creates congestion problems.
You don't need a car in Oslo though. Provided you weren't planning on going there by car. In fact bringing a car to Oslo is mostly just bringing yourself more trouble. It's not a big city so you can get to almost "anywhere" in Oslo by foot. Or you can take the bus or the tram or the subway, depending on where you are going. Whereas with a car you will struggle to find parking and there are multiple one-way streets in the very center. And also there are toll stations if you go across the boundary between the outer parts of the city and the rest of the world outside of it.
That being said, I don't know you so of course I don't known how important cars and driving is to you. But in general I would recommend not bringing a car to Oslo unless you have a good reason to bring it. Even if you have a lot of luggage you should have no significant problem transporting it on the train from the airport outside of Oslo on the train and then bring it to the hotel or wherever you are staying by jumping on to a bus for example.
That being said, I don't know you so of course I don't known how important cars and driving is to you. But in general I would recommend not bringing a car to Oslo unless you have a good reason to bring it. Even if you have a lot of luggage you should have no significant problem transporting it on the train from the airport outside of Oslo on the train and then bring it to the hotel or wherever you are staying by jumping on to a bus for example.
Thinking in terms of 'I' is part of the problem.
Found the groupthinker. Joking aside, what is the alternative you propose? Especially in view of human nature
'Is what I view as a necessity really a luxury? And what impact does it have on my community and the environment as a whole?'
Not a luxury, neither a necessity, just a nice affordable thing to have that greatly improves nearly everybody’s quality of life, especially if you have children.
That’s ok. You can go elsewhere.
What are we going to do with millions of people who will loose jobs in the automotive industry? Surely they will if we ban cars!
Off topic : Publication should really stop using such extreme expressions for what is essentially simple progressive policies.
"War on cars" really? Are they banning cars from ever entering the capital?
The whole thing is more like "Govt. is actively discouraging usage of cars"
"War on cars" really? Are they banning cars from ever entering the capital?
The whole thing is more like "Govt. is actively discouraging usage of cars"
Ongoing since last election 4 years ago which gave the Green Party and the left control over the city for the first time in 2 decades. Just visited Oslo the first time in years last week, and the city was so much more enjoyable with less cars on the streets. New election this autumn, fingers crossed.
Clickbait title, register-walled article. Not sure it's even new news:
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2165462/drive...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-oslo...
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2165462/drive...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-oslo...
spacegod(2)