Can a city really ban cars from its streets? (2014)(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Can a city really ban cars from its streets? (2014)
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140204-can-a-city-really-go-car-free?
212 comments
Food for thought:
A ~450 sqft studio apartment in SF costs about $2k/mo in rent.
a ~150 sqft monthly parking spot (as per http://sanfrancisco.bestparking.com/), costs about $400
Three parking spots takes up the same square footage as a studio apartment. It costs a little over half of that.
Then consider how much parking in SF is free parking. Just straight up free. Parking lots for stores. Street parking on most residential streets. Driveways and garages.
It's fucking insane how much space is wasted on car storage. It's even more fucking insane that so much of this storage is de-facto free (which is implicitly a subsidy from the person providing the space to car owners; in a sense it's a subsidy from renters, since any parking space could be a sorely needed living space instead)
I can't wait, I just can't wait until Uber-like on-demand ride tech + self driving cars means we can massively reduce our vehicle stock. Think of all the things that could be more awesome
A ~450 sqft studio apartment in SF costs about $2k/mo in rent.
a ~150 sqft monthly parking spot (as per http://sanfrancisco.bestparking.com/), costs about $400
Three parking spots takes up the same square footage as a studio apartment. It costs a little over half of that.
Then consider how much parking in SF is free parking. Just straight up free. Parking lots for stores. Street parking on most residential streets. Driveways and garages.
It's fucking insane how much space is wasted on car storage. It's even more fucking insane that so much of this storage is de-facto free (which is implicitly a subsidy from the person providing the space to car owners; in a sense it's a subsidy from renters, since any parking space could be a sorely needed living space instead)
I can't wait, I just can't wait until Uber-like on-demand ride tech + self driving cars means we can massively reduce our vehicle stock. Think of all the things that could be more awesome
> I can't wait, I just can't wait until Uber-like on-demand ride tech + self driving cars means we can massively reduce our vehicle stock. Think of all the things that could be more awesome
First, get rid of the zoning laws that require those spots, then they'll disappear. You can cram (depending on building height restrictions) dozens of apartments in to the same 2 dimensional plane as those 3 parking spots.
First, get rid of the zoning laws that require those spots, then they'll disappear. You can cram (depending on building height restrictions) dozens of apartments in to the same 2 dimensional plane as those 3 parking spots.
Perhaps all hard limits on building height could be removed, but with the addition of a new rule that requires every new residential building to have 1 level of parking garage for every 3 stories it has (or some other similar ratio). Then, if you wanted to build a 15 story apartment building you would be allowed to, but you'd have to provide enough parking garage to satisfy all of those people.
The problem then is parking in commercial districts. Street parking is good for businesses on that street, but a better solution could be more city-run parking garages in good locations, and city streets in commercial areas that are optimized for pedestrians.
The best example of this I have ever seen is down-town Silver Spring in Maryland. That was several years ago, I hear they tore a bunch of it up, but it at least used to be great.
The problem then is parking in commercial districts. Street parking is good for businesses on that street, but a better solution could be more city-run parking garages in good locations, and city streets in commercial areas that are optimized for pedestrians.
The best example of this I have ever seen is down-town Silver Spring in Maryland. That was several years ago, I hear they tore a bunch of it up, but it at least used to be great.
If you build more parking space then you bring new more cars onto the street.
Here in London new residential buildings are built with zero parking spaces (just a small a shared drop-off/deliveries area). There are already too many cars in the city, and public transport is good enough for most people (of course there are people who for good reasons need cars, but they're the exception rather than the rule).
Here in London new residential buildings are built with zero parking spaces (just a small a shared drop-off/deliveries area). There are already too many cars in the city, and public transport is good enough for most people (of course there are people who for good reasons need cars, but they're the exception rather than the rule).
Why have a requirement? If the people want garages, let them demand garages, let the market price garages so that they're an efficient use of space and construction resources on the margin.
That kind of defeats the purpose of removing the parking requirements. If you require every 3 units to have one parking spot, you raise the price of each unit by 30%. Additionally since tenants are paying for the spot anyway, it incentivizes them to buy a car that they might otherwise do without. If there turns out to be a market need for parking spots, I'm sure someone will step in and build a long term parking garage in the neighbourhood, but you aren't mandating every tenant regardless of car ownership desire subsidize the others.
Minimum parking requirements subsidize car users at the expense on non-car users.
Minimum parking requirements already exist in many (most?) cases. In fact they may be the problem, not the solution.
Read: The High Cost of Free Parking http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf
Read: The High Cost of Free Parking http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf
A lot of the cost comes from dedicating acreage to parking.
If there were more parking garages, there would be less asphalt sprawl.
Mandatory parking garages inside apartments is a bad method, but the goal is admirable. No surface parking, no matter how many cars.
If there were more parking garages, there would be less asphalt sprawl.
Mandatory parking garages inside apartments is a bad method, but the goal is admirable. No surface parking, no matter how many cars.
Actually, that is law in Germany. For every amount of building space (residential, business, ...) you are required to provide a number of parking space (depending on the type of building). If you can not provide the required amount of parking space, then you have to pay a fee to the city. All the numbers like required parking space and amount for the fee is decided by the city. So in high density cities the fee is more expansive than in the country side.
I believe the city of austin has similar limits on new building downtown, parking must be integrated vertically.
I believe SF is ahead of many cities in not requiring their developers to build excessive parking. Cutting parking requirements in buildings is one of the easiest things a city can do to make building construction cheaper and lower housing costs.
SF is ahead of many cities, but apparently still has "minimum parking requirements" for certain new developments. Good news though, that may be about to change:
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/03/02/supervisor-breed-calls-...
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/03/02/supervisor-breed-calls-...
On demand / driverless vehicles don't necessarily reduce vehicle stock. If the use is for standard travel patterns, they barely reduce it at all. That's where land use, encouraging bikes, and transit fill in -- walking, bikes, busses, trolleys, and subways all have vastly greater capacity per unit street area than single-passenger vehicles do. How they deal with complex routes can vary considerably though.
What such systems do allow is for vehicle storage to be separated from high-density land-use. A self-driving vehicle can be told to go park itself elsewhere, a dispatched vehicle doesn't need to park while the passenger is otherwise occupied.
But both still occupy street space, and require storage space somewhere.
What such systems do allow is for vehicle storage to be separated from high-density land-use. A self-driving vehicle can be told to go park itself elsewhere, a dispatched vehicle doesn't need to park while the passenger is otherwise occupied.
But both still occupy street space, and require storage space somewhere.
Perhaps we should embrace this view, and extend it just a tiny bit further:
Since the tunnels for cars are already dug up, all we need to do is cover them with concrete slabs, cover the slabs over with asphalt for bikes/pedestrians and vegetation for sitting around, and declare the entire city pedestrian only. The cars can continue to hurry back and forth underground.
Since the tunnels for cars are already dug up, all we need to do is cover them with concrete slabs, cover the slabs over with asphalt for bikes/pedestrians and vegetation for sitting around, and declare the entire city pedestrian only. The cars can continue to hurry back and forth underground.
There's some really nice futurist art from the 1930's depicting NYC in 2000. All cars are underground in tunnels under the streets, just like subways are. It's beautiful and the city would be amazing if this happened at some point, which honestly with overpopulation just might in the next 100 years or so.
After the Great Seattle Fire in the late 19th century, Seattle had the opposite problem of the one illustrated there: the city rebuilt the streets higher than before to avoid flooding problems, but merchants didn't want raise their buildings. So the city streets were 12–30 feet higher than the sidewalks!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground
Travel is the driver of all human progress and development.
What, you think the amount of roads we have now is a lot? We've always had roads, they were for carts, or horses, or anything else. There is nothing special about cars here.
> Gosh I hope we can figure this out in my lifetime.
We did. We made travel cheap and easy and it has benefited us massively.
What, you think the amount of roads we have now is a lot? We've always had roads, they were for carts, or horses, or anything else. There is nothing special about cars here.
> Gosh I hope we can figure this out in my lifetime.
We did. We made travel cheap and easy and it has benefited us massively.
> Travel is the driver of all human progress and development.
Actually, people with lots of free time and access to drugs is the driver of all human progress and development.
Actually, people with lots of free time and access to drugs is the driver of all human progress and development.
Really? What drugs did Sir Tim Berners-Lee do when he created the World Wide Web?
Sir Tim, as a UK citizen in the late 20thC would have used many drugs in his lifetime, paracetamol, aspirin, penicillin, vaccines... I think you may have leapt to a conclusion about the drugs the parent post meant. Are you thinking about those recreational drugs a bit too much ... :-)
Please do not insult the reader. Honestly, your comment offends me. I know you're making a joke but it's so condescending I can't stand it.
Yes the last sentence was meant as a joke and is admittedly rather condescending. However the first half of my comment is I think valid - access to medicinal as opposed to recreational drugs is part of the virtuous circle that has driven human development - better agriculture, better sanitation and better medication have all had outsize impacts.
To deliberately - or perhaps honestly - miss that point and suggest access to recreational drugs (the only kind we use the term "doing drugs") is necessary to point out.
To deliberately - or perhaps honestly - miss that point and suggest access to recreational drugs (the only kind we use the term "doing drugs") is necessary to point out.
"free time and access to drugs" is clearly talking about drugs that alter mental state. s73v3r was not the one missing the point.
I disagree, in the context of the post (human society and development over thousands of years), then I read that as "free time - better agriculture" and "access to drugs - medication to improve quality of life"
I can see it as being taken either way though
I can see it as being taken either way though
Increased productivity over time hasn't correlated very well with the amount of free time people have, and there's always been room for tinkering. There were especially large amounts of free time pre-agriculture.
And I wouldn't put advances in medical drugs particularly high on the list of advances either. It's not even the top of the list of medical advances. Though I don't classify vaccines as drugs.
And I wouldn't put advances in medical drugs particularly high on the list of advances either. It's not even the top of the list of medical advances. Though I don't classify vaccines as drugs.
I meant psychoactive drugs.
I think it was that radioactive spider venom stuff. I hear Peter Parker was on it, too.
> We did. We made travel cheap and easy and it has benefited us massively.
If you're referring to ICE and automobiles, that "cheap" cost is bought by uncountable externalities that aren't on the balance sheet: many lives and wars to secure this cheap fuel, not to mention climate change.
If you're referring to ICE and automobiles, that "cheap" cost is bought by uncountable externalities that aren't on the balance sheet: many lives and wars to secure this cheap fuel, not to mention climate change.
That's being fixed already with new propulsion methods - namely, electric power, which could potentially be provided via cleaner energy sources (wind, solar, fission, geothermal, fusion (someday), etc.). This will soon make automobiles even cheaper on all fronts - even those that - as you say - "aren't on the balance sheet".
Arguments to ban cars outright because of climate change and oil might've been relevant in the 20th century, but now they're pretty much moot, so long as electric vehicles continue to grow in popularity.
Arguments to ban cars outright because of climate change and oil might've been relevant in the 20th century, but now they're pretty much moot, so long as electric vehicles continue to grow in popularity.
Electric vehicles can still kill your family, friends, and self.
No disagreement there. I was merely pointing out that objecting to cars because of their pollution is silly when more and more of us are driving around in electric vehicles.
Most electricity is generated from coal and other fossil fuels.
For now. That, too, will eventually no longer be an issue.
We didn't have roads 4 lanes wide (which is a huge amount of additional land lost), and we didn't have the insane amount of parking space.
Even a not particularly car friendly city like Amsterdam would look dramatically different if you removed the parking space, because it would free up such an insane amount of space.
Cars have multiplied the amount of space dedicated to transport, without actually adding much to human progress and development, what with most of it being used to carry individuals short distances from A to B and back again.
I don't see the massive benefit here. It's a pointless habit we shaped a life/work culture around with a mostly negative impact on the quality of life.
Even a not particularly car friendly city like Amsterdam would look dramatically different if you removed the parking space, because it would free up such an insane amount of space.
Cars have multiplied the amount of space dedicated to transport, without actually adding much to human progress and development, what with most of it being used to carry individuals short distances from A to B and back again.
I don't see the massive benefit here. It's a pointless habit we shaped a life/work culture around with a mostly negative impact on the quality of life.
>without adding much to human progress and development
I am opposed to vehicles being the priority, but their prevalence is directly related to their usefulness within the economic regions they occur in. If you ever go to the developing world, you will see vehicles used to grow and maintain society. It is easy to forget, living in the suburbs as i do, that most of the world does not joy ride over-produced SUVs.
The ability to move freely is a magical thing. Living in a place with bad roads is a reality to itself that i think every westerner should experience. The problem is what we use to take advantage of the roads.
Roads are society's rivers.
I am opposed to vehicles being the priority, but their prevalence is directly related to their usefulness within the economic regions they occur in. If you ever go to the developing world, you will see vehicles used to grow and maintain society. It is easy to forget, living in the suburbs as i do, that most of the world does not joy ride over-produced SUVs.
The ability to move freely is a magical thing. Living in a place with bad roads is a reality to itself that i think every westerner should experience. The problem is what we use to take advantage of the roads.
Roads are society's rivers.
Roads are great. The argument is against personal cars. You can have most of those gains with a vastly smaller number of automobiles, and remove many of the negatives like parking lots.
I completely agree. I was only responding to the assertion that roads and vehicles are fairly useless.
I hope i live to see the day when city centers are car free, and all cars on the road are automated and distributed. Imagine leaving your domicile, hitting a widget on your device, and in a short time a vehicle approaches near silently, its bay door opening. you step in and you are off to work at a consistent 60kph. Each day, you see the same people on their commutes, so you naturally strike up conversations and friendships. With the steering column as well as ~90% of other standard car interaction gack gone, the interior is free to be redesigned to suit whatever purpose one may have. Vehicles could link up, breakfast could be enjoyed over whatever amount of data you choose to view on your way, and there would be no traffic that the passenger is accountable for. And in the afternoon you do it all again, only now beverage quads flit back and forth between mothership and car swarm, possibly making the commute the high point of the day.
I hope i live to see the day when city centers are car free, and all cars on the road are automated and distributed. Imagine leaving your domicile, hitting a widget on your device, and in a short time a vehicle approaches near silently, its bay door opening. you step in and you are off to work at a consistent 60kph. Each day, you see the same people on their commutes, so you naturally strike up conversations and friendships. With the steering column as well as ~90% of other standard car interaction gack gone, the interior is free to be redesigned to suit whatever purpose one may have. Vehicles could link up, breakfast could be enjoyed over whatever amount of data you choose to view on your way, and there would be no traffic that the passenger is accountable for. And in the afternoon you do it all again, only now beverage quads flit back and forth between mothership and car swarm, possibly making the commute the high point of the day.
> We didn't have roads 4 lanes wide
Actually that would have been pretty typical for a 19th century American city, e.g. in San Francisco most of the older streets have always been that wide.
Actually that would have been pretty typical for a 19th century American city, e.g. in San Francisco most of the older streets have always been that wide.
Exactly. The Romans just parked their horses in a nearby field and got them fed at the same time! Renewable fuel and the perfect "green space" parking lot / local park
No, they did not. Those nearby fields only existed in transit (between cities). By cities those areas were simply seas of mud that people avoided.
Cities did not value green spaces at all.
I understand the desire for the "good old days", but those days never actually existed.
Cities did not value green spaces at all.
I understand the desire for the "good old days", but those days never actually existed.
Mud and horse poop - before the car London as the biggest city had serious problems just getting rid of all the waste from the horses used on its streets.
Yes, but carts and horses don't habitually move at 25 MPH or more. It was possible to get run over and killed by a cart, but walking into a busy city street full of cars (without following the signals) is almost certain to get you killed. That's a pretty big difference in how the space can actually be used.
The first section of this article is interesting in this context: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
The first section of this article is interesting in this context: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
To be fair, millions of horses in the streets would cause a lot of pollution in the form of horse dung. Streets would be mired in horse crap... And what would you do with it, if you removed it? Some could be used as fertilizer, but not all. Woe are us after the rains...
Actually horse transport did kill a substantial number of people you might not know that today horse riding is a dangerous sport.
> walking into a busy city street full of cars (without following the signals) is almost certain to get you killed
This is total nonsense, easily falsified by just looking at daily urban life in the modern world. The behavior you describe is completely routine in Shanghai; deaths are rare.
This is total nonsense, easily falsified by just looking at daily urban life in the modern world. The behavior you describe is completely routine in Shanghai; deaths are rare.
This is total nonsense, easily falsified by just looking at daily urban life in the modern world. The behavior you describe is completely routine in Shanghai; deaths are rare.
The Chinese appear to disagree:
Shanghai traffic police have punished 350,000 cases of pedestrian jaywalking this year.... There have been more than 200 crashes involving pedestrians that have killed 56 people as a result of ignoring traffic signals in Shanghai this year, traffic police said. (2012)[1]
and
According to Shanghai traffic police, 48 people have been killed and 206 injured in more than 200 accidents in the first 5 months of 2013, involving either jaywalking or scooters and mopeds running red lights[2]
[1] http://en.people.cn/90882/8059898.html
[2] http://www.healthandsafetyinshanghai.com/shanghai-traffic.ht...
The Chinese appear to disagree:
Shanghai traffic police have punished 350,000 cases of pedestrian jaywalking this year.... There have been more than 200 crashes involving pedestrians that have killed 56 people as a result of ignoring traffic signals in Shanghai this year, traffic police said. (2012)[1]
and
According to Shanghai traffic police, 48 people have been killed and 206 injured in more than 200 accidents in the first 5 months of 2013, involving either jaywalking or scooters and mopeds running red lights[2]
[1] http://en.people.cn/90882/8059898.html
[2] http://www.healthandsafetyinshanghai.com/shanghai-traffic.ht...
48 deaths in 5 months is a rare malfunction for something that happens millions of times a day. And those aren't even all pedestrian deaths.
This is a hell of a strawman. The proposition isn't to remove the ability to travel, which (as you said) is effectively the removal of geographic barriers to interaction. It's to replace car travel with something that has lower costs in terms of efficiency, health, economics, city planning, fatalities, the environment, etc etc etc etc.
> What, you think the amount of roads we have now is a lot? We've always had roads, they were for carts, or horses, or anything else. There is nothing special about cars here.
Not all roads are made equal. There's a huge difference between "space reserved for a mode of travel" and the public spaces that roads[1] (in cities) were before cars became ubiquitous.[2] A good analogue is imagining a path in a park: it's generally used for transit (people walking and occasionally biking), but it's also fully open as a public space for the citizenry to use as they please.
[1] This whole conversation is about roads in cities, so that's what I'm referring to: roads across sparsely populated countryside don't have nearly as high a cost, nor do they have as many viable alternatives.
[2] http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
> What, you think the amount of roads we have now is a lot? We've always had roads, they were for carts, or horses, or anything else. There is nothing special about cars here.
Not all roads are made equal. There's a huge difference between "space reserved for a mode of travel" and the public spaces that roads[1] (in cities) were before cars became ubiquitous.[2] A good analogue is imagining a path in a park: it's generally used for transit (people walking and occasionally biking), but it's also fully open as a public space for the citizenry to use as they please.
[1] This whole conversation is about roads in cities, so that's what I'm referring to: roads across sparsely populated countryside don't have nearly as high a cost, nor do they have as many viable alternatives.
[2] http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
You have a VERY rosy eyed view of what cities were like before the car.
What they were actually like is rivers of mud mixed with horse manure. There were just as many roads before as now, except they were very dirty.
> and the public spaces that roads (in cities) were before cars became ubiquitous
Absolute nonsense. Go read some history, or even fictionalized accounts. Roads were never public spaces like you imagine. They were roads, and carts and horses routinely road right over people who didn't get out of the way.
They were crowded and dirty, and those open spaces you imagine did not exist inside cities. (There plenty of open spaces outside cities, of course.)
Your dream world existed to some degree inside farm villages, but never in cities.
What they were actually like is rivers of mud mixed with horse manure. There were just as many roads before as now, except they were very dirty.
> and the public spaces that roads (in cities) were before cars became ubiquitous
Absolute nonsense. Go read some history, or even fictionalized accounts. Roads were never public spaces like you imagine. They were roads, and carts and horses routinely road right over people who didn't get out of the way.
They were crowded and dirty, and those open spaces you imagine did not exist inside cities. (There plenty of open spaces outside cities, of course.)
Your dream world existed to some degree inside farm villages, but never in cities.
> You have a VERY rosy eyed view of what cities were like before the car. What they were actually like is rivers of mud mixed with horse manure. There were just as many roads before as now, except they were very dirty.
I was actually worried my point may come across like this and considered clarifying, but I figured it would be obvious with even a moment's thought that I'm not suggesting literally reverting to exactly how roads were before cars. The only point I was making with respect to the way roads were used was that they were closer to public spaces than the situation we have now. Roads today are reserved pretty much exclusively for vehicles: just try dawdling or having a conversation on a major street in any city to see what I mean. If you RTFA, Hamburg is planning to replace the massive amount of space wasted by roads with green spaces. Relying on things like underground subways or elevated monorails or (much much much smaller than roads) bike paths means we can have the best of both worlds: undo the disastrous damage that cars did to city planning and public spaces without giving up the incredible benefits of streamlined transportation that cars enabled.
> Absolute nonsense. Go read some history, or even fictionalized accounts. Roads were never public spaces like you imagine. They were roads, and carts and horses routinely road right over people who didn't get out of the way.
Absolute nonsense. Go read some history, or even fictionalized accounts. Roads were public spaces almost exactly as I described them, since what I said was that vehicle traffic existed alongside people strolling and standing and doing whatever the hell else. As I mentioned above, we'll even be getting rid of the vehicle-induced downsides of these previous spaces (the mess and the danger), since vehicle traffic will be completely excluded from the road-replacements being described in the article.
We're lucky enough to have video from the early 1900s[1], which shows exactly what I mean about roads essentially being extensions of the way sidewalks are today (+ vehicle traffic), as opposed to the "all vehicles except for crosswalks" style we have today.
By the way, I notice that the only thing you addressed in your entire response was nitpicking (an inaccurate interpretation of) my unimportant supporting comment about how roads previously were. As I said before, the only thing I was alluding to was the fact that they were space that you could actually use, spend time on, play on, etc, as opposed to the reserved-for-cars and much-more-dangerous-for-pedestrians streets we have in the modern era. I can only assume you fully agree with the _actual_ point of my comment, which is that talking about giving up the advantages that efficient transit has bought is either disingenuous or idiotic, since that's not what's being discussed.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJfTa5SjDCY
I was actually worried my point may come across like this and considered clarifying, but I figured it would be obvious with even a moment's thought that I'm not suggesting literally reverting to exactly how roads were before cars. The only point I was making with respect to the way roads were used was that they were closer to public spaces than the situation we have now. Roads today are reserved pretty much exclusively for vehicles: just try dawdling or having a conversation on a major street in any city to see what I mean. If you RTFA, Hamburg is planning to replace the massive amount of space wasted by roads with green spaces. Relying on things like underground subways or elevated monorails or (much much much smaller than roads) bike paths means we can have the best of both worlds: undo the disastrous damage that cars did to city planning and public spaces without giving up the incredible benefits of streamlined transportation that cars enabled.
> Absolute nonsense. Go read some history, or even fictionalized accounts. Roads were never public spaces like you imagine. They were roads, and carts and horses routinely road right over people who didn't get out of the way.
Absolute nonsense. Go read some history, or even fictionalized accounts. Roads were public spaces almost exactly as I described them, since what I said was that vehicle traffic existed alongside people strolling and standing and doing whatever the hell else. As I mentioned above, we'll even be getting rid of the vehicle-induced downsides of these previous spaces (the mess and the danger), since vehicle traffic will be completely excluded from the road-replacements being described in the article.
We're lucky enough to have video from the early 1900s[1], which shows exactly what I mean about roads essentially being extensions of the way sidewalks are today (+ vehicle traffic), as opposed to the "all vehicles except for crosswalks" style we have today.
By the way, I notice that the only thing you addressed in your entire response was nitpicking (an inaccurate interpretation of) my unimportant supporting comment about how roads previously were. As I said before, the only thing I was alluding to was the fact that they were space that you could actually use, spend time on, play on, etc, as opposed to the reserved-for-cars and much-more-dangerous-for-pedestrians streets we have in the modern era. I can only assume you fully agree with the _actual_ point of my comment, which is that talking about giving up the advantages that efficient transit has bought is either disingenuous or idiotic, since that's not what's being discussed.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJfTa5SjDCY
> I was actually worried my point may come across like this and considered clarifying,
No, I understood, I was trying to tell you that roads are, and were, for travel and that's it. This public space you love never occurred on roads. People have ZERO interest in doing anything on a road except getting to their destination. We have lost nothing whatsoever.
> vehicle traffic existed alongside people strolling and standing and doing whatever the hell else
You can not bring back the halcyon days when people strolled slowly and were not in a rush. Those days are gone and are not coming back. People want to get where they are going without any time waste.
You propose replacing roads with underground subway or monorail, which are entirely unsuitable for 90% of cities. Plus they don't solve the last mile problem, I've actually never heard of any solution for it except self driving cars that don't exist, or expensive taxis. And even then you still need your hated roads!
> As I said before, the only thing I was alluding to was the fact that they were space that you could actually use, spend time on, play on, etc,
No ever actually did that. Your dream world simply never existed.
Go watch that video you posted and tell me how many people you see talking to other people. I spotted exactly ZERO. People were shopping, or going places, sometimes together. But none were using this "public space" you imagine for anything except travel.
Perhaps you are thinking of central markets like a souq? But that's only a tiny portion of the road network.
> which shows exactly what I mean about roads essentially being extensions of the way sidewalks are today (+ vehicle traffic), as opposed to the "all vehicles except for crosswalks" style we have today.
And you'll still have your hated roads even in your scenario! Only instead of carts you'll have slow autos? So in essence you want to drop the speed limit? And that's about it? So why all the text about how much space roads are taking?
Or do you want to get rid of roads to bring back an ideal that never existed and that no one even wants (periodic mini-parks would provide all the advantages and none of the drawbacks), and have no suggestions for what to replace it with?
No, I understood, I was trying to tell you that roads are, and were, for travel and that's it. This public space you love never occurred on roads. People have ZERO interest in doing anything on a road except getting to their destination. We have lost nothing whatsoever.
> vehicle traffic existed alongside people strolling and standing and doing whatever the hell else
You can not bring back the halcyon days when people strolled slowly and were not in a rush. Those days are gone and are not coming back. People want to get where they are going without any time waste.
You propose replacing roads with underground subway or monorail, which are entirely unsuitable for 90% of cities. Plus they don't solve the last mile problem, I've actually never heard of any solution for it except self driving cars that don't exist, or expensive taxis. And even then you still need your hated roads!
> As I said before, the only thing I was alluding to was the fact that they were space that you could actually use, spend time on, play on, etc,
No ever actually did that. Your dream world simply never existed.
Go watch that video you posted and tell me how many people you see talking to other people. I spotted exactly ZERO. People were shopping, or going places, sometimes together. But none were using this "public space" you imagine for anything except travel.
Perhaps you are thinking of central markets like a souq? But that's only a tiny portion of the road network.
> which shows exactly what I mean about roads essentially being extensions of the way sidewalks are today (+ vehicle traffic), as opposed to the "all vehicles except for crosswalks" style we have today.
And you'll still have your hated roads even in your scenario! Only instead of carts you'll have slow autos? So in essence you want to drop the speed limit? And that's about it? So why all the text about how much space roads are taking?
Or do you want to get rid of roads to bring back an ideal that never existed and that no one even wants (periodic mini-parks would provide all the advantages and none of the drawbacks), and have no suggestions for what to replace it with?
> You can not bring back the halcyon days when people strolled slowly and were not in a rush. Those days are gone and are not coming back. People want to get where they are going without any time waste.
If you're in a rush then taking cars through a city is a terrible method to get somewhere fast. The root problem is not that people have gotten more efficient.
>the last mile problem
You could have public transport. It wouldn't have to be exotic. It would need one lane and wouldn't fill it.
> And you'll still have your hated roads even in your scenario! Only instead of carts you'll have slow autos? So in essence you want to drop the speed limit? And that's about it? So why all the text about how much space roads are taking?
A few slow cars would not take up nearly as much space, and they would not interfere with people walking.
If you're in a rush then taking cars through a city is a terrible method to get somewhere fast. The root problem is not that people have gotten more efficient.
>the last mile problem
You could have public transport. It wouldn't have to be exotic. It would need one lane and wouldn't fill it.
> And you'll still have your hated roads even in your scenario! Only instead of carts you'll have slow autos? So in essence you want to drop the speed limit? And that's about it? So why all the text about how much space roads are taking?
A few slow cars would not take up nearly as much space, and they would not interfere with people walking.
>This public space you love never occurred on roads.
You are flat out wrong. Markets, bazaars, strip malls, housing; these are all based on road placement. What happens when a city has a huge celebration? Why, they shut down the roads so people can move freely in safety and merriment. What happens when the government pushes its citizenry too far? Why, take to the streets and make yourself heard!
TBH, i cannot think of a thing/facet of infrastructure that is more representative of public space and socializing than a road. True, steel death machines flying about at 70kph+ is not conducive to healthy neighborhoods. really, the personal car is a huge fracking waste of time, material, and currency.
I think you may, as my father does, believe that the car is some magical device that creates freedom and profits out of thin air. Just look at the commercials; each year we are expected to believe that the NEW one is SO MUCH FUCKING BETTER than last years model WHICH IS SHIT COMPARED TO THE NEW AVENTURAMO by NISSOTA NOW FOR JUST 200%+ THE AMOUNT IT COSTS TO MAKE!!! Truly, car culture is what props up the fallacious American Exceptionalism that capitalists purport.
How sad is it that the most patriotic thing i can do, more than military service or medical aid or child rearing, is to own 1+ cars and make all of the requisite repairs and pay for all of the titling, permits, and insurance?
You are flat out wrong. Markets, bazaars, strip malls, housing; these are all based on road placement. What happens when a city has a huge celebration? Why, they shut down the roads so people can move freely in safety and merriment. What happens when the government pushes its citizenry too far? Why, take to the streets and make yourself heard!
TBH, i cannot think of a thing/facet of infrastructure that is more representative of public space and socializing than a road. True, steel death machines flying about at 70kph+ is not conducive to healthy neighborhoods. really, the personal car is a huge fracking waste of time, material, and currency.
I think you may, as my father does, believe that the car is some magical device that creates freedom and profits out of thin air. Just look at the commercials; each year we are expected to believe that the NEW one is SO MUCH FUCKING BETTER than last years model WHICH IS SHIT COMPARED TO THE NEW AVENTURAMO by NISSOTA NOW FOR JUST 200%+ THE AMOUNT IT COSTS TO MAKE!!! Truly, car culture is what props up the fallacious American Exceptionalism that capitalists purport.
How sad is it that the most patriotic thing i can do, more than military service or medical aid or child rearing, is to own 1+ cars and make all of the requisite repairs and pay for all of the titling, permits, and insurance?
>No ever actually did that. Your dream world simply never existed.
You are completely wrong:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
You are completely wrong:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
>fictionalized accounts
The amount of plays, novels, stories, poems, and songs that take place in and on and nearby, as well as revolving around and referencing to, ares of transit is pretty large. When looked at in the context of human existence on the planet, roads are the pathways human cells use to move and multiply and spread and settle. So much culture and development occurs on the paths of humanity. This is not limited to any single road concept; bridges, train tracks, shipping lanes, and airports all spawn society blocks around them.
The Pathways have always been public spaces. Are you opposed to those public spaces being safer and more productive? If so, would you say it is because vehicles [methods of human conveyance] have a priority over people [humans living] in the Public Square?
The point of travel is the people that can do it, not the profits to be gained or the methods to be employed IMO.
The amount of plays, novels, stories, poems, and songs that take place in and on and nearby, as well as revolving around and referencing to, ares of transit is pretty large. When looked at in the context of human existence on the planet, roads are the pathways human cells use to move and multiply and spread and settle. So much culture and development occurs on the paths of humanity. This is not limited to any single road concept; bridges, train tracks, shipping lanes, and airports all spawn society blocks around them.
The Pathways have always been public spaces. Are you opposed to those public spaces being safer and more productive? If so, would you say it is because vehicles [methods of human conveyance] have a priority over people [humans living] in the Public Square?
The point of travel is the people that can do it, not the profits to be gained or the methods to be employed IMO.
> vehicles [methods of human conveyance] have a priority over people [humans living] in the Public Square
On roads, vehicles absolutely have a priority over people. This is so obvious, I'm honestly not sure why I had to state the previous sentence.
On roads, vehicles absolutely have a priority over people. This is so obvious, I'm honestly not sure why I had to state the previous sentence.
You do know there are people in those vehicles right? The way you write that, you make it sound like the vehicles are just driving around on their own.
The vehicles have no priority at all, the people in them do.
Does that bother you that someone wrapped in a vehicle has priority over someone not wrapped?
It's like that always - small boats have to give way to large ones for example.
The vehicles have no priority at all, the people in them do.
Does that bother you that someone wrapped in a vehicle has priority over someone not wrapped?
It's like that always - small boats have to give way to large ones for example.
It's like that always - small boats have to give way to large ones for example.
Boats traveling through fluid, controlled by a relatively tiny prop, are in no way comparable to road-going vehicles that enjoy the static friction of rubber on asphalt.
Additionally, all vehicles on the road are held to (virtually) the same legal standards, regardless of size. If anything, laws are more restrictive the larger the vehicle.
Also, this is false:
The vehicles have no priority at all, the people in them do.
There are many parts of the country where it would be illegal to cross a road on foot (jaywalking), but entirely legal to do so within a vehicle.
Boats traveling through fluid, controlled by a relatively tiny prop, are in no way comparable to road-going vehicles that enjoy the static friction of rubber on asphalt.
Additionally, all vehicles on the road are held to (virtually) the same legal standards, regardless of size. If anything, laws are more restrictive the larger the vehicle.
Also, this is false:
The vehicles have no priority at all, the people in them do.
There are many parts of the country where it would be illegal to cross a road on foot (jaywalking), but entirely legal to do so within a vehicle.
I get the feeling that you have little to no experience on the water outside of Jaws and pontoon party boats. Size only matters in context with the area one operates in. Malaca Straits? Bet your ass the big boys have priority... but that is because of traffic and pirates. Coastal Downeast Maine? If you have the elephantiasis feel free to cut off the lobstermen in their tiny boats; i will watch you get keel hauled from a safe distance.
It is always context as well as proportion. Neither air nor water work as reference points for driving, as the scale in both those worlds is analogous to the variance in insect size [ant to dragonfly] or water creature [diatom to jelly fish] while the road is much more like the difference in dog breeds. On top of that, the land is our natural habitat, as opposed to the hydro- or atmosphere, and the use of that space must take into account that society is based on people and not profits or production. Yes, like mobility, the are absolutely important, but only in how they advance culture and society. A heart is a meat pump if there is no brain to feed oxygen.
There are more people without vehicle access than with. De-personalizing vehicles would be a good thing.
And just because i'm on a rant: how many people die from terrorist attacks per annum v. car accidents? If the government[s] actually cared about people, vehicular death would be confronted with the same rigor and rhetoric that extremist islam is. Kind of sad that rich south africans and faceless cororations are the only ones who seem to be doing anything about it.
It is always context as well as proportion. Neither air nor water work as reference points for driving, as the scale in both those worlds is analogous to the variance in insect size [ant to dragonfly] or water creature [diatom to jelly fish] while the road is much more like the difference in dog breeds. On top of that, the land is our natural habitat, as opposed to the hydro- or atmosphere, and the use of that space must take into account that society is based on people and not profits or production. Yes, like mobility, the are absolutely important, but only in how they advance culture and society. A heart is a meat pump if there is no brain to feed oxygen.
There are more people without vehicle access than with. De-personalizing vehicles would be a good thing.
And just because i'm on a rant: how many people die from terrorist attacks per annum v. car accidents? If the government[s] actually cared about people, vehicular death would be confronted with the same rigor and rhetoric that extremist islam is. Kind of sad that rich south africans and faceless cororations are the only ones who seem to be doing anything about it.
Because it's not obvious. Do you dispute the article about jaywalking?
With the automobile came the invention of 'jaywalking', and the idea that the street belongs primarily to cars rather than people. The nature of public space changed fundamentally.
Many European cities are heavily pedestrianised, with large areas of the centre accessible only for deliveries. There are big public health impacts - walking and cycling becomes more popular, children have safe spaces to play, accident rates fall and the air quality is drastically improved.
Many European cities are heavily pedestrianised, with large areas of the centre accessible only for deliveries. There are big public health impacts - walking and cycling becomes more popular, children have safe spaces to play, accident rates fall and the air quality is drastically improved.
And not just an invention after the fact! "Jaywalking" was a word made up by the auto companies to sway public opinion in their direction (and paint pedestrians who use the street as stupid).
99% Invisible did a nice episode on it a while back: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-...
99% Invisible did a nice episode on it a while back: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-...
There weren't many powerful automobile companies in 1891.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Noo4AQAAMAAJ&q=%22jaywalki...
https://books.google.com/books?id=Noo4AQAAMAAJ&q=%22jaywalki...
Obviously the indexed text of this book is not actually from 1891, given that the very next sentence talks about 1926 in the past tense.
> Results 1-1 of 1 > Page 49 > Within ninety days after the signing of those pledges, the records of the Bureau of Public Safety showed a decrease of almost 50 per cent in accidents resulting from jaywalking. In 1926 all honorary and special commissionerships in the police ...
> Results 1-1 of 1 > Page 49 > Within ninety days after the signing of those pledges, the records of the Bureau of Public Safety showed a decrease of almost 50 per cent in accidents resulting from jaywalking. In 1926 all honorary and special commissionerships in the police ...
Hah! That'll teach me to cut and paste fresh data....
Hm,that's interesting. I wonder why the OED doesn't mention this source in its earliest usage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term
EDIT: In case that sounded sarcastic or like I didn't believe you, I'm actually curious about how they're so far off in their "first usage".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Origin_of_the_term
EDIT: In case that sounded sarcastic or like I didn't believe you, I'm actually curious about how they're so far off in their "first usage".
Because this is Volume 39, which was actually published in 1954, not 1891.[1]
Search the book for 1954, or any year before then, you will get results. Search for 1955 and you get nothing.
[1] http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=ncycus...
Search the book for 1954, or any year before then, you will get results. Search for 1955 and you get nothing.
[1] http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=ncycus...
Many European cities have 30km/h zones where the term jaywalking makes no sense because people has always priority over cars.
I really thing life is better in cities where people has priority over cars. But it is also true that the lower population density in a city, the higher dependency on cars it has.
I really thing life is better in cities where people has priority over cars. But it is also true that the lower population density in a city, the higher dependency on cars it has.
I am currently in Kyoto where cars go pretty slowly and give way to bikes and pedestrians. Rather then honking a horn. Its rather nice.
> There is nothing special about cars here.
Cars kill 1.2 million people a year. I think that is special, and not something that happened before.
Cars kill 1.2 million people a year. I think that is special, and not something that happened before.
> Gosh I hope we can figure this out in my lifetime.
We can figure it out with pure market forces; currently building codes across the continent require businesses to have a certain amount of off-street parking. That also has the effect of killing small local businesses. Own a restaurant? Doing well? Want to expand? Your 6 table restaurant requires no off street parking, but an 8 table restaurant requires (for example) 6 spaces, meaning you can't just add another couple tables, you need to buy / lease the entire building next to yours, demolish it, and use it for parking.
Get rid of these anti-business pro-car zoning laws, and the problem takes care of itself.
We can figure it out with pure market forces; currently building codes across the continent require businesses to have a certain amount of off-street parking. That also has the effect of killing small local businesses. Own a restaurant? Doing well? Want to expand? Your 6 table restaurant requires no off street parking, but an 8 table restaurant requires (for example) 6 spaces, meaning you can't just add another couple tables, you need to buy / lease the entire building next to yours, demolish it, and use it for parking.
Get rid of these anti-business pro-car zoning laws, and the problem takes care of itself.
I'm unfamiliar with this - does it pertain to physical tables or number of seats? If for instance you take an approach such as Bennihana where you have large tables and just add people to the table until it's full, is that counted differently than 8 tables for 4? If two parties of 4 show up, they're both seated at the same table... if the table is for 10, then when another couple show up, they're added to the same table. Does this count as 1 table or 3?
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/
Minimum parking laws are the most important of many command-and-control policies and mandates that created the car-oriented American city. More than minimum setbacks, minimum lot sizes, FAR limits, single use zoning, ploughing heavily subsidized freeways through cities, and the rest, parking policy is why American cities have decayed.
Returning to free markets would let American cities be great again.
As for restaurant parking minima, they're usually based on inside area and sometimes on seating. There are minima for offices, factories, schools, homes, ana every land use in most cities.
Minimum parking laws are the most important of many command-and-control policies and mandates that created the car-oriented American city. More than minimum setbacks, minimum lot sizes, FAR limits, single use zoning, ploughing heavily subsidized freeways through cities, and the rest, parking policy is why American cities have decayed.
Returning to free markets would let American cities be great again.
As for restaurant parking minima, they're usually based on inside area and sometimes on seating. There are minima for offices, factories, schools, homes, ana every land use in most cities.
Depends entirely on the city's zoning law. Max occupancy or floor space ratio are fairly common
The flip side is, ignore the problem, remove the building codes, and what will happen? I can tell you: gridlock. Over the last 15 years I've been visiting a suburb of Charlotte, NC. Every year I'm amazed how many forested have been bulldozed and shiny new subdivisions standing in their places. The result is a trip that used to take 10 minutes can take 40, or more. My father, who lives there and has been watching the local politics surrounding this, says everyone is just burying their heads in the sand. More building permits are issued and the problem gets worse and worse. The problem is, there is a lot more building planned, but still no solution to the transportation problems.
When it comes to infrastructure, market forces don't really work.
When it comes to infrastructure, market forces don't really work.
Suburbs exist only because of government subsidies - they wouldn't be built in a free market because they are just too damn expensive. They require massive public funding for infrastructure - roads, water, sewage, side walks, etc, over the course of decades. At the same time, that infrastructure is only used by the residents of the suburb by design. They don't permit through traffic nor do they allow for mixed use. The problem isn't growth in a free market. The problem is just the opposite in fact.
All those highways were put in with taxpayer money. And the parking at the other end is the fault of building codes. If developers had to pay for all the highway to their new subdivisions, the market would look very, very different.
Which continent? At least here in the States (near Lake Tahoe specifically), there are plenty of 8+ table restaurants that don't have their own off-street parking. This has been the case in pretty much every American downtown I've visited; most drivers rely on either roadside parking spaces (usually metered) or dedicated parking garages/lots instead.
The main exception I've noticed is Reno (along with the Nevada side of Tahoe), given that the bigger casinos - even in "downtown" areas - will typically provide parking garages for their guests.
The main exception I've noticed is Reno (along with the Nevada side of Tahoe), given that the bigger casinos - even in "downtown" areas - will typically provide parking garages for their guests.
Some pre-code buildings are grandfathered. Minimum parking was mostly phased in between the 1930s and 1960s. You can't build a new restaurant without parking except in a very, very small fraction of American urban areas.
I'd imagine that restaurants in urban centers are rarely "built" nowadays; in downtowns, you're probably leasing (or maybe buying) an existing building.
I feel you should visit any developing country to get a feel of why zoning / building / parking laws are required.
I'm confident that some reduction of paved surface can be achieved in most or all cities, but I think your tone is making the situation seem a bit more ridiculous than it actually is. I would expect a significant portion of any densely populated city to be paved, for the simple reason that people need to be able to get to essentially every part of a city. Short of more fanciful solutions like fully elevated or underground passageways, you're going to need roughly the same grid of roads even if you eliminate cars. Granted, you could theoretically get significant constant factor reduction in the width of roads if you can remove lanes (through banning cars, encouraging carpooling/public transit, or increasing bicyclists and pedestrians).
Of course, wide streets predate cars. Both Chicago's and NYC's street grids, with their wide avenues, predate the era in which everyone had a personal automobile. But take a look at older cities with narrower streets. You can get around Center City Philly, but the streets are so narrow in parts you barely notice crossing them.
> Short of more fanciful solutions like fully elevated or underground passageways, you're going to need roughly the same grid of roads even if you eliminate cars.
Not actually true. Grids come in many different shapes and sizes. As one easy example: the block size. As a city planner, you can choose any block size you like, and this will adjust the ratio of real estate to transportation infrastructure accordingly.
Additionally, and this is fanciful futurism more than anything else: in a city that functions without ubiquitous private vehicle traffic, you can make the roads narrower, which also increases the real estate. To take an example from where I live:
http://sfdpw.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3690
Potrero Avenue in SF is 100 feet wide. A hundred feet. If you naievely parceled this land out by drawing a line across the road every 5 feet, the each demarcated space would be worth $2k/mo rent. In a hypothetical future city without cars, you wouldn't need a road to be a hundred feet wide.
More reading re: grid plans
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/10/14/places-and-non... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_plan (specifically this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Block_Sizes_and_Street_Len...)
Not actually true. Grids come in many different shapes and sizes. As one easy example: the block size. As a city planner, you can choose any block size you like, and this will adjust the ratio of real estate to transportation infrastructure accordingly.
Additionally, and this is fanciful futurism more than anything else: in a city that functions without ubiquitous private vehicle traffic, you can make the roads narrower, which also increases the real estate. To take an example from where I live:
http://sfdpw.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3690
Potrero Avenue in SF is 100 feet wide. A hundred feet. If you naievely parceled this land out by drawing a line across the road every 5 feet, the each demarcated space would be worth $2k/mo rent. In a hypothetical future city without cars, you wouldn't need a road to be a hundred feet wide.
More reading re: grid plans
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/10/14/places-and-non... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_plan (specifically this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Block_Sizes_and_Street_Len...)
Agreed, the trick is to ban parking and narrow the roadways a lot. A few months ago this [0] was on HN and I was very convinced by its arguments pertaining to automobiles and urbanization.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090190
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090190
Like Venice, Hamburg could use its vast system of waterways for transportation. If it's going to happen in any European city, I think Hamburg is one of the most logical options. It is after all, often referred to as the Venice of the North.
You should take a look at the Madrid Rio project by Dutch studio West8, it's very similar to the mentioned idea in the BBC article: http://www.west8.nl/projects/madrid_rio/
In Summary:
- The city of Madrid buried a 6km section of their ring road
- In this buried section, a total of 46km of roads/tunnels have been constructed
- The above area is now a reclaimed riverbank and a huge park
- IMO, a superb public realm initiative, although I'm guessing not cheap
In Summary:
- The city of Madrid buried a 6km section of their ring road
- In this buried section, a total of 46km of roads/tunnels have been constructed
- The above area is now a reclaimed riverbank and a huge park
- IMO, a superb public realm initiative, although I'm guessing not cheap
Thank you for this link. This is really impressive.
Seriously! It's crazy.
We live in such an auto centric society. I often think, why do we have the parking lot in shopping centers go all the way up to the front door (so you have to cross in the path of cars to enter the building)?
Why don't the aisles go directly up to a big sidewalk/walking area in front of the building and that's it? You could have turnarounds every few for picking people up and something dedicated for emergency vehicles, but it's crazy that you have to cross in front of cars to enter the building, when there's 0 reason for those cars to drive right in front of the building!
We live in such an auto centric society. I often think, why do we have the parking lot in shopping centers go all the way up to the front door (so you have to cross in the path of cars to enter the building)?
Why don't the aisles go directly up to a big sidewalk/walking area in front of the building and that's it? You could have turnarounds every few for picking people up and something dedicated for emergency vehicles, but it's crazy that you have to cross in front of cars to enter the building, when there's 0 reason for those cars to drive right in front of the building!
Regardless of design you must let emergency services access the building simply.
No lane in front means Fire Trucks cannot stop in front of the massive building.
I'd bet that front lanes are a building code / safety requirement.
No lane in front means Fire Trucks cannot stop in front of the massive building.
I'd bet that front lanes are a building code / safety requirement.
I'm confident you could alter the current design to allow for extremely easy emergency service access to whatever part of the building needed, without having a giant ass road right in front of the building's front door.
Correct. You can indeed have an aisle that supports emergency and delivery vehicles without allowing daily vehicle traffic to the front of the building.
[deleted]
Gosh I hope we can figure this out in my lifetime.
Me too. BTW, The High Cost of Free Parking by Shoup is amazing on this issue (http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/1932...). Totally changed my perspective when I read it.
Me too. BTW, The High Cost of Free Parking by Shoup is amazing on this issue (http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/1932...). Totally changed my perspective when I read it.
I've lived in multiple cities over the years. Currently it's Seattle. If anything, I'd say Seattle is one of the less paved-over places I've been.
All the bodies of water certainly help.
There's also just a lot of green space here. The city's got parks all over, in a bunch of different sizes. If you're downtown you have to trek a bit to get to a nice quiet park, but it's generally pretty easy to find somewhere you can just sit in a patch of dandelions and contemplate the ineffable.
I seem to remember someone saying that just over half of Los Angeles' land is paved for roads and parking lots. It's pretty ridiculous.
Even if we banned cars from Seattle, I would hope that we wouldn't tear up those roads and put buildings on them. Turning them into elongated parks for pedestrians would be a better option.
Of the arguments against cars in cities, I think that "streets waste space" is the weakest. I rarely drive, but I wouldn't want to be in a city without some sort of streets, that would just be claustrophobic.
Of the arguments against cars in cities, I think that "streets waste space" is the weakest. I rarely drive, but I wouldn't want to be in a city without some sort of streets, that would just be claustrophobic.
visit old Europe. The tiny little avenues between buildings are quite cozy and beautiful
Have you been to a European city, somewhere built before cars? Open space is good but you don't need the width of American streets, and it's important to get the pedestrian density up high enough that people feel like there's something going on.
Yes, and I find it claustrophobic.
Pedestrian density should be targeted using a "pedestrians per block" metric, not a "pedestrians per square meter" metric. 100 people on a wide pedestrian path is preferable to 100 people on a narrow pedestrian path of the same length. I don't think that constantly getting in the way of other people, getting stuck behind other people, and constantly bumping into other people helps anyone.
Then again, I also avoid concerts because crowd density, so maybe I'm just the odd one out here.
Pedestrian density should be targeted using a "pedestrians per block" metric, not a "pedestrians per square meter" metric. 100 people on a wide pedestrian path is preferable to 100 people on a narrow pedestrian path of the same length. I don't think that constantly getting in the way of other people, getting stuck behind other people, and constantly bumping into other people helps anyone.
Then again, I also avoid concerts because crowd density, so maybe I'm just the odd one out here.
Well, it depends where you go. Amsterdam is certainly dense and claustrophobic, so are a lot of smaller towns built around markets. Then you have cities like Edinburgh or Paris that are built around the notion of wide boulevards. Most likely you'd find some fractal pattern in the distribution of wide vs narrow streets in most older cities.
> Have you been to a European city, somewhere built before cars?
Ahh, Paris. Well-known for its cramped boulevards.
Ahh, Paris. Well-known for its cramped boulevards.
Central Paris is kind of a special case since the original center was all but demolished and rebuilt in a sweeping top down reform to get rid of all the cramped streets. And solving traffic congestion was one of the reasons for putting in those wide boulevards. The 'original' Paris, before Hausmann rebuilt it from the ground up, was full of narrow streets.
Well, it was known for its cramped streets until, to p make it easier to respond effectively with massed fire to the kind of anti-government action seen in the revolution, they were widened.
That change does predate cars by a little bit, though.
That change does predate cars by a little bit, though.
No way in hell is Seattle 33% paved vehicle surface. Not even remotely possible. City blocks account for more than 66% of surface area in the city core. And there aren't sprawling parking lots everywhere.
You're gonna have to provide a citation for this one.
You're gonna have to provide a citation for this one.
"About 27 percent of all land in Seattle is public right-of-way. SDOT manages the land through a permitting process, said Jennifer Wieland, an SDOT program manager." [1](http://realchangenews.org/2013/05/01/parking-spaces-could-be...)
Thank you! Not the stat I remember, but sounds like it is in line. As others have pointed out, the ROW includes sidewalks, and the planting strip used to protect sidewalks from vehicles. If I add to this all the off-street parking, then 33% sounds pretty darned plausible / in-line with this stat. Aside, Jennifer Wieland is one of the most awesome public servants I've ever met.
ROWs usually extend far beyond the edge of the road.
You'd be surprised how far into your yard the ROW for your street extends.
You'd be surprised how far into your yard the ROW for your street extends.
My neighborhood has possibly one of the more generous plantable right-of-ways in the city; the sum of plantable ROW is wider than the paved surface. But most places it seems to be 4-6 feet plantable, and denser areas completely paved.
I would assume that includes sidewalks?
Yes. Paved doesn't necessarily mean that it's vehicle-accessible.
Does 'public right-of-way' include green parks? Spaces such as sculpture park, volunteer park, botanical garden, discovery park, and many more?
No, those aren't considered part of the ROW by any accounting I'm familiar with.
27% ROW, minus the parts for pedestrians and the parts designed to protect pedestrians from cars, plus all the off-street parking (including driveways)? 33% sounds pretty darned plausible to me.
But you're right, this is one of those academic stats I should be able to cite properly. Since I can't find it (I swear it was on Seattle Public Utilities website once upon a time), perhaps this will be an afternoon task to validate. Should be doable by carving up the city into grid cells of some appropriate unit and then using orthophotos to aid blocking out car-accessible hardscape in a random sampling of grid cells.
But you're right, this is one of those academic stats I should be able to cite properly. Since I can't find it (I swear it was on Seattle Public Utilities website once upon a time), perhaps this will be an afternoon task to validate. Should be doable by carving up the city into grid cells of some appropriate unit and then using orthophotos to aid blocking out car-accessible hardscape in a random sampling of grid cells.
Contact me if you do! Check my profile. Would love to see the result.
> When you total up the amount of land that we dedicate to cars, it's absolutely staggering.
What a narrow minded blinkered and oblique view of reality. Without the invention of the internal combustion engine and our ability to efficiently do as we please whenever we please we wouldn't have almost any of the economic freedom we enjoy today. If you wish to be a luddite and which a rural localised way of life on everyone that's another matter
What a narrow minded blinkered and oblique view of reality. Without the invention of the internal combustion engine and our ability to efficiently do as we please whenever we please we wouldn't have almost any of the economic freedom we enjoy today. If you wish to be a luddite and which a rural localised way of life on everyone that's another matter
Driverless car could take us (almost) there. The coordination would allow traffic to flow incredibly smoothly, meaning a single one-way lane would be enough for most streets. They could more easily be shared, significantly lowering the need for parking. Even privately-owned cars could find their parking spot in i. e. an underground garage a few blocks away. Therefore: no need for parking spaces along the road.
So you go from four lanes (2 driving, 2 parking) to just a single one. Sidewalk area increases from "two-lane width" to four and one lane is free for bicycles.
It's going two be a revolution comparable to the invention of the internet, completely changing the quality of living in cities. And I get to see it, yeah. (Unless I end up being one of the world's last traffic fatalities)
So you go from four lanes (2 driving, 2 parking) to just a single one. Sidewalk area increases from "two-lane width" to four and one lane is free for bicycles.
It's going two be a revolution comparable to the invention of the internet, completely changing the quality of living in cities. And I get to see it, yeah. (Unless I end up being one of the world's last traffic fatalities)
I'd also suggest that efforts to try to "remove cars" prior to this technology are likely to amount to wastes of time. There's a lot of people who want this, which makes me somewhat suspicious that the studies are just finding what they want to find, and I rather suspect what Hamburg is going to discover is that they spend a lot of money making it so cars can't penetrate their "city", only to discover, oops, we can't actually remove them after all.
You may dislike passenger cars (and I detect more than a faint whiff of Puritanism around that whole attitude, but that's a discussion for another day), but to entirely remove roads requires you to also solve the problem that motor vehicles are also the general circulatory system of a city. Now I think there are solutions to that problem... but they're all about 10 years away, minimum. We aren't there yet.
And then, when we do get there, it won't need to be helped along by governments or modern-day Puritans... it'll just happen, faster and better than any premature attempt to make it happen before the tech is there ever could make it happen.
You may dislike passenger cars (and I detect more than a faint whiff of Puritanism around that whole attitude, but that's a discussion for another day), but to entirely remove roads requires you to also solve the problem that motor vehicles are also the general circulatory system of a city. Now I think there are solutions to that problem... but they're all about 10 years away, minimum. We aren't there yet.
And then, when we do get there, it won't need to be helped along by governments or modern-day Puritans... it'll just happen, faster and better than any premature attempt to make it happen before the tech is there ever could make it happen.
Why the ad hominems? Such people may not be to your taste, fine. But theirs is as nothing to the whiff from a tailpipe. Live and let live.
It's fine – I probably have a puritanical side. More than that though:
I believe cities just aren't the right place for cars. It's a tragedy of the commons that car usage creates a situation where public transport cannot be funded to an adequate amount and traffic conditions scare away people who would otherwise take a bike.
Cities also suffer because cars encourage a structure of big, centralised shops that are easily accessible by car, but nothing else. I do get the convenience of a mall (and the economics), but, wow, how much would I miss the social environment of a lively city.
It's possibly a cultural thing … you prefer whatever environment you grew up in, and that just happens to be 'old Europe' for me.
OTOH there's nothing better than a curvy mountain road or the Arizona desert in a convertible. I'm not a complete Luddite.
I believe cities just aren't the right place for cars. It's a tragedy of the commons that car usage creates a situation where public transport cannot be funded to an adequate amount and traffic conditions scare away people who would otherwise take a bike.
Cities also suffer because cars encourage a structure of big, centralised shops that are easily accessible by car, but nothing else. I do get the convenience of a mall (and the economics), but, wow, how much would I miss the social environment of a lively city.
It's possibly a cultural thing … you prefer whatever environment you grew up in, and that just happens to be 'old Europe' for me.
OTOH there's nothing better than a curvy mountain road or the Arizona desert in a convertible. I'm not a complete Luddite.
When I use the term Puritanism, it's not an ad hominem. It is a description of a mentality that the United States imported in quantity, and despite what people may like to believe, it is not isolated to one side or another.
This is still not the best summary I know, but one half-decent summary is that Puritanism is the fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun, or perhaps something more like, "I don't like cars and have no use for cars and therefore neither should anybody else."
Objective reasons that car traffic is "bad" is in short supply. It is more a taste issue than anything else. But the proles might be having fun with their cars, and we can't have that....
This is still not the best summary I know, but one half-decent summary is that Puritanism is the fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun, or perhaps something more like, "I don't like cars and have no use for cars and therefore neither should anybody else."
Objective reasons that car traffic is "bad" is in short supply. It is more a taste issue than anything else. But the proles might be having fun with their cars, and we can't have that....
It is unreasonable to require a person, albeit implicitly, to justify their motives, when the thing they are objecting to has a material impact on their life. In this thread people are talking about noise, pollution, safety and more. Yet you side-swipe his/her motivation.
Your fun is yours alone. Their motivation is theirs alone. A vehicle's aforementioned externalities are common though. We can just focus on those.
Your fun is yours alone. Their motivation is theirs alone. A vehicle's aforementioned externalities are common though. We can just focus on those.
> You may dislike passenger cars (and I detect more than a faint whiff of Puritanism around that whole attitude, but that's a discussion for another day),
Is this how Americans insinuate that they think someone is too old-fashioned and stuck up? heh.
Personally I don't see the connection between Puritanism and wanting to live in an environment with fewer cars.
Is this how Americans insinuate that they think someone is too old-fashioned and stuck up? heh.
Personally I don't see the connection between Puritanism and wanting to live in an environment with fewer cars.
I think that driverless cars would make up for it by increasing the total amount of traffic. If driving has little cost as an activity, people will drive much more and be ok with much longer commutes.
The average speed in a city is probably around 20km/h, at least in the city I am in (Berlin, Germany). With perfect coördination of driverless cars, you could possibly raise that to 60km/h – which is the speed cars drive when they're not in traffic or stopped at traffic lights. That leaves a lot of road usage to disappear even if car usage actually increases.
That would increase the average kinetic energy on the roads 9 times. 9 times more severity and frequency of accidents with an unclear responsibility. 9 times more noise and energy consumption. 9 times less pedestrian and bicycle and humans friendly cities. Driverlessness does not change the physics of transportation.
Right now much of the true cost of commuting is spread out in periodic costs like vehicle purchase, maintenance, licensing fees, paying for parking/storage, etc. But all anybody looks at is the time and gas.
If you're taking a car service of some sort, all the other stuff will getg figured into the per-mile cost and presented for payment each day when you get to work. I'm guessing once people are hit in the face with the full cost, they will make different (and arguably more rational) decisions.
If you're taking a car service of some sort, all the other stuff will getg figured into the per-mile cost and presented for payment each day when you get to work. I'm guessing once people are hit in the face with the full cost, they will make different (and arguably more rational) decisions.
There may be some truth to that but look at a city which has a large number of taxis and car services like Manhattan. It's not exactly a car-less paradise.
This is one of the things I find somewhat strange about how so many people go gaga whenever optimistic dates for self-driving cars get thrown out. If you live in a city, you already have a "self-driving" option. Maybe someday it will be possible to create autonomous cars (that can put all those drivers out of a job). But basically the only thing that you're doing that you can't do today is dropping the price by, I don't know, $10/hr?
This is one of the things I find somewhat strange about how so many people go gaga whenever optimistic dates for self-driving cars get thrown out. If you live in a city, you already have a "self-driving" option. Maybe someday it will be possible to create autonomous cars (that can put all those drivers out of a job). But basically the only thing that you're doing that you can't do today is dropping the price by, I don't know, $10/hr?
It's not exactly carless, but IIRC the article mentioned 56% of Manhattanites don't own a car. Plus they have a massive influx of work commuters, of whom I'm guessing a vast majority don't drive. So it definitely does work, at least to some extent and when the conditions are right.
I thought cabbies made more than that when you count in tips, but you might be right. Living in a city that's not very well served by cabs, I don't use them much because when I call for one they only show up 50% of the time, and give very poor information about time-to-pickup. I like to imagine that the "car cloud" would be much better about both of those, and hence more useful. But that may just be wishful thinking.
I thought cabbies made more than that when you count in tips, but you might be right. Living in a city that's not very well served by cabs, I don't use them much because when I call for one they only show up 50% of the time, and give very poor information about time-to-pickup. I like to imagine that the "car cloud" would be much better about both of those, and hence more useful. But that may just be wishful thinking.
Absolutely, Manhattan simply couldn't function if most people owned cars and tried to drive. But no visitor to Manhattan is going to even remotely think "Oh, this is such a wonderful place for pedestrians" :-) Of course, Manhattan is very densely populated but auto/truck traffic is pretty horrible for large parts of the day in many areas.
Manhattan taxis are readily hail-able on the street. And they're supplemented by both Uber/Lyft and private car services. So, as a city, it's probably the definition of well-served by third-party cars and it's very much a part of the city's fabric. Just good luck getting either a cab or Uber (at a reasonable rate) if it's pouring rain.
Maybe $10 should be $15 but who knows about vehicle costs in some hypothetical future or what human support would be needed. My basic point was that, to a first approximation, we already have what amount to self-driving cars within larger and denser cities.
Manhattan taxis are readily hail-able on the street. And they're supplemented by both Uber/Lyft and private car services. So, as a city, it's probably the definition of well-served by third-party cars and it's very much a part of the city's fabric. Just good luck getting either a cab or Uber (at a reasonable rate) if it's pouring rain.
Maybe $10 should be $15 but who knows about vehicle costs in some hypothetical future or what human support would be needed. My basic point was that, to a first approximation, we already have what amount to self-driving cars within larger and denser cities.
So people will perceive the self driving taxis as more expensive and continue to own cars like they do now.
I don't understand why this point isn't obvious to people. If I have a "driver" (actually doesn't matter if it's organic or electronic), of course I'm going to accept a longer commute if I can put my feet up and read a book or work on my laptop. There's a limit of course. At one point, I sometimes had a (long) commute by train and it just ends up being a big chunk out of your day. Likewise, if my driver can deal with city driving (and parking) I'm going to be much more inclined to take a car rather than mass transit unless congestion or other fees really tilt the cost balance.
It's going two be a revolution comparable to the invention of the internet
The funny thing is, the revolution of the internet, being able to click on Amazon and just have a thing delivered (or from a million other websites) assumes a ubiquitous road network. Let's say you cut the number of cars on the road tenfold... Who pays for this now?
Just for some figures, taxes on motorist in the UK, which are mainly fuel, raise about £50Bn/year. Government spending on all forms of transport is about £25Bn/year. So let's say through self-driving cars, carpooling, more working from home, etc etc we do achieve a tenfold reduction, now far from paying for everything twice over, cars only pay for a fifth. Where does the money come from? And if it doesn't, how much of the "internet revolution" still works?
The funny thing is, the revolution of the internet, being able to click on Amazon and just have a thing delivered (or from a million other websites) assumes a ubiquitous road network. Let's say you cut the number of cars on the road tenfold... Who pays for this now?
Just for some figures, taxes on motorist in the UK, which are mainly fuel, raise about £50Bn/year. Government spending on all forms of transport is about £25Bn/year. So let's say through self-driving cars, carpooling, more working from home, etc etc we do achieve a tenfold reduction, now far from paying for everything twice over, cars only pay for a fifth. Where does the money come from? And if it doesn't, how much of the "internet revolution" still works?
Yep, this is definitely the future. In major cities, self-driving cars will be available in fleets to summon on-demand Uber-style at $.50/mile or less (which is similar to the total cost of ownership of an average relatively new vehicle in the city). The value proposition will be so strong that many urban dwellers will no longer need to own cars at all. Roads will be more efficient and safer; parking lots will be smaller and fewer in number.
In sparser areas of the country driverless cars will have less of an effect, but those are also the areas where parkings lots and roads constitute a much smaller percentage of surface area.
In sparser areas of the country driverless cars will have less of an effect, but those are also the areas where parkings lots and roads constitute a much smaller percentage of surface area.
I think the big change with driverless cars will be more on demand "right size" vehicles. A two seat smart car or one seat scooter type vehicle makes much more sense for commuting (typically) than a larger vehicle.
This report is false. While Hamburg does plan for a "Green Network", there are no plans to ban cars or become "car free".
Official statement from the city of Hamburg (in German): http://www.hamburg.de/pressearchiv-fhh/4257482/2014-01-24-bs...
Official statement from the city of Hamburg (in German): http://www.hamburg.de/pressearchiv-fhh/4257482/2014-01-24-bs...
We didn't seem to have any trouble banishing people from the streets, so I hardly see the problem.
Adding to that insight, I've gone hiking in the backcountry and I've seen the vibrant economy that results from an absence of mobility. (note, the above is extreme sarcasm)
You're saying that there aren't any photo sharing startups in that backwards backcountry? Gosh darn.
Those poor people!
Adding to your insight, I've gone cycling on Lincoln and Wilshire (LA) and noted the lack of sheer terror at the thought of being killed at any possible second.
(Also sarcasm. I broke ribs and had a driver who wasn't paying attention nearly flatten me at a red light)
(Also sarcasm. I broke ribs and had a driver who wasn't paying attention nearly flatten me at a red light)
Cars are a huge waste of space:
https://geppbloggt.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gehzeug1.jpg https://diskussionsgruppespartacus.files.wordpress.com/2012/...
https://geppbloggt.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gehzeug1.jpg https://diskussionsgruppespartacus.files.wordpress.com/2012/...
Huge use of space. Waste is an opinion.
Waste isn't an opinion, but rather a shorthand. Nobody (sane) is optimizing for "amount of cars on the road", but rather the benefits that cars bring (economic benefits due to streamlined transportation, etc). Generally when the term "waste" is used, the implication is:
If option A can provide the benefits that option B can provide with less cost (in this case, space), then the incremental space being used is "wasted". It's a pretty fundamental use of the word.
If option A can provide the benefits that option B can provide with less cost (in this case, space), then the incremental space being used is "wasted". It's a pretty fundamental use of the word.
Yes that is my opinion.
Allowing this waste is the opposite of a smart city.
Using 1,5 t of mass to transport on average 100 kg is also a massive waste of energy.
Using 1,5 t of mass to transport on average 100 kg is also a massive waste of energy.
If this were actually doing as the title suggests, it would demolish the possibility for any personal DIY projects that require heavy equipment/materials. Indeed, bulk home goods and appliance sales companies should be up in arms.
Luckily, they're just trying to make it possible to get around without cars, not illegal to use cars, which is likely to dramatically increase the possibility for lightweight cooperative social interactions.
Luckily, they're just trying to make it possible to get around without cars, not illegal to use cars, which is likely to dramatically increase the possibility for lightweight cooperative social interactions.
In most areas, even pedestrianized streets allow delivery and residents' vehicles (sometimes also taxis), at certain times of the day at least. In some cases any vehicle is allowed as long as it watches for pedestrians, and travels at a speed safe for a mixed-use road (meaning 5-20 km/hr or so, depending on road size and congestion). Sometimes the arrangement is called a "living street" if that's the explicit design goal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street
In central Copenhagen a number of streets are like that, so you often see delivery vehicles slowly making their way through. But most cars that don't need to drive right into the city center will avoid it and take one of the more major roads that bypasses the city center. So it gets most of the cars out of the city center by just incentivizing them to take a faster route, and allows/requires the remaining ones to share the road on an equal basis with other users.
In central Copenhagen a number of streets are like that, so you often see delivery vehicles slowly making their way through. But most cars that don't need to drive right into the city center will avoid it and take one of the more major roads that bypasses the city center. So it gets most of the cars out of the city center by just incentivizing them to take a faster route, and allows/requires the remaining ones to share the road on an equal basis with other users.
In Berlin (where not everybody owns a car), it's quite common to see people walking out of the hardware store with large planks of wood balanced over their shoulder, or sometimes in a bike trailer. People manage.
And yes, obviously you still need to allow commercial delivery vehicles. There's really no alternative to that.
And yes, obviously you still need to allow commercial delivery vehicles. There's really no alternative to that.
A plank of wood or two is fine to carry, but what if you need to move something heavier like a refrigerator or a piece of furniture? It's ridiculous to think that people should have to carry that stuff by hand or on bicycles over distances of multiple miles.
I think it's more feasible that we ban personal vehicles in cities while still allowing commercial and emergency vehicles. Even allowing these vehicles, we'd probably be able to reduce most roads to single lane one way streets.
I think it's more feasible that we ban personal vehicles in cities while still allowing commercial and emergency vehicles. Even allowing these vehicles, we'd probably be able to reduce most roads to single lane one way streets.
> what if you need to move something heavier like a refrigerator or a piece of furniture?
How did the refrigerator get into the store in the first place? It can get out the same way.
How did the refrigerator get into the store in the first place? It can get out the same way.
I don't know how often you buy new refrigerators, but I would rather hire a delivery company every time I change my refrigerator if that means living in a clean city.
On the other car, the ban for private cars usually has only effect during a period of the day. In Barcelona, at least, you can access most streets in the city center after 20:00.
On the other car, the ban for private cars usually has only effect during a period of the day. In Barcelona, at least, you can access most streets in the city center after 20:00.
> hire a delivery company
As usual, this plan is OK for the more affluent and makes life more difficult for the poor.
As usual, this plan is OK for the more affluent and makes life more difficult for the poor.
Poor people are probably using public transit, not driving in the first place. Investment in public transportation would be good for them. Investment in roads (automobile infrastructure) benefits only those who can afford cars.
So it is more expensive to pay a one time fee to deliver the fridge (which a lot of companies do, or make it free), than to own and run a car?
What you say may be true in US cities, or in the countryside.
For me, living in Tokyo, it is really cheaper not owning a car but renting it when I need to, or hiring a delivery service. I guess that the same happens in most major European cities.
For me, living in Tokyo, it is really cheaper not owning a car but renting it when I need to, or hiring a delivery service. I guess that the same happens in most major European cities.
Clearly the sane solution is then for everyone to own a car. Because that's what people use cars for in the city, moving heavy stuff.
This just sounds like concern-trolling.
This just sounds like concern-trolling.
I'm generally a fan of anything to remove cars from the city center, it is really an improvement and transitions us from the inefficiency of single-occupant transportation to group movements. As you point out, it also introduces logistical complexities for downtown residents, but when everybody is in the same situation it is perhaps easier to build comprehensive solutions.
It would be pretty nice if roads were such that things like deliveries, various public transit, and taxi/car sharing options were the only allowed options as far as cars go. If the roads become uncongested, and parking is no long a major use of cities, a lot of the existing uses for cars would disappear.
it is hard to imagine right now, but if you made cars completely illegal except for maybe emergency vehicles, i do believe that we would see a lot of creative solutions pop up for transporting bulk items or large items like furniture.
Clickbait to the max.
"The city’s proposed Grünes Netz, or “Green Network” will create pedestrian and cycle paths to connect the city’s existing, substantial green spaces, and provide safe, car-free commuter routes for all residents."
That is awesome, but it has nothing to do with banning vehicles.
"The city’s proposed Grünes Netz, or “Green Network” will create pedestrian and cycle paths to connect the city’s existing, substantial green spaces, and provide safe, car-free commuter routes for all residents."
That is awesome, but it has nothing to do with banning vehicles.
Of course it does. Their intention is to convert the roads to those paths, which is something they can't possibly do while still supporting cars.
Some roads, not all roads.
Hamburg's mentioned plan reminds me of Daniel Burnham's 1905 plan for San Francsico, which would have created Panhandle-like parks running all over the city as well as diagonal avenues connecting major points of interest a-la Paris or Washington DC. The 1906 earthquake would've been the perfect opportunity to make it a reality, but unfortunately it never went anywhere.
Map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Burnham_San_Fr...
Map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Burnham_San_Fr...
Such a huge lost opportunity. Many cities (Boston, Minneapolis) have very beautiful parks connected by chains of greenways. San Francisco could have built that, but didn't, and the lack of parks in the Eastern part of the city has a major negative effect on livability. Consider how nice South Park seems compared to the rest of SOMA.
I am surprised nobody mentioned Venice, the largest car-free city in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice#In_the_historical_city
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice#In_the_historical_city
People often forget to mention that Venice is car-less. It was one of the most relaxing and unique things about the city to me and not a single person mentioned it to me before I visited.
It is amazing how ambitious and progressive Germany has been over the last two decades. It has always been very public transportation and self-locomotion focused, but this is quite impressive. They have curtailed nuclear energy; funded alternative energy production, research, and socialization; curtailed fossil fuel energy production and use; and now are moving towards the future of in this manner. In a way, they are also setting up the city, and maybe even the country, for autonomous vehicles.
As I have been spending significant time on evaluating and analyzing the ramifications of autonomous vehicles, one thing has always been a bit of a challenge, how to make a transition. It's actually relatively easy in Germany and not that much of a leap since a lot of the foundational work had been done and the trajectory has been in a complementary direction. The real challenge will be how the USA makes the transition and doesn't simply sabotage itself out of spite for itself as it has an established reputation for now.
As I have been spending significant time on evaluating and analyzing the ramifications of autonomous vehicles, one thing has always been a bit of a challenge, how to make a transition. It's actually relatively easy in Germany and not that much of a leap since a lot of the foundational work had been done and the trajectory has been in a complementary direction. The real challenge will be how the USA makes the transition and doesn't simply sabotage itself out of spite for itself as it has an established reputation for now.
There's nothing "progressive" about eliminating nuclear energy. Especially when the goal is more electrical transportation, not less.
If we can replace nuclear with other clean sources, such as solar and wind, until the time that we can safely dispose of nuclear waste, then yes, I'd say that's progressive.
What about thorium and the liftr reactor? it uses 90%+ of its fuel.
[deleted]
Are those actually in production yet?
(Not trying to be snarky, just though those were still not really ready yet)
(Not trying to be snarky, just though those were still not really ready yet)
This is actually a misunderstanding - while Hamburg does plan to connect its green spaces, it does not plan to ban all cars.
See their official statement (in German): http://www.hamburg.de/pressearchiv-fhh/4257482/2014-01-24-bs...
See their official statement (in German): http://www.hamburg.de/pressearchiv-fhh/4257482/2014-01-24-bs...
As a resident of Hamburg I can assure you it will not become a car-free city within the next 20 years. So far, we don't even have an "Umweltzone" (green or environmental friendly zone) where only cars maintaining certain filtering and mileage standards are allowed to drive.
The goal of Hamburg’s project is to replace roads with a “gruenes netz” or a green network of interconnected open areas covering 40% of the city. According to the official website, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, allotments and cemeteries will be connected to form a network, which will allow people to navigate through the city without the use of cars.
Why not just let people walk on the roads? Places like cemeteries and parks can be quite creepy to walk through, especially at night. Roads next to buildings with people in them are a more comfortable place to walk.
Why not just let people walk on the roads? Places like cemeteries and parks can be quite creepy to walk through, especially at night. Roads next to buildings with people in them are a more comfortable place to walk.
Is that just because that isn't the norm? If it was quite normal to walk through a cemetery or park at night, would it still be as creepy or is it just because of the proliferation of ghost and paranormal stories...?
Im surprised so few of the comments deal with disabled people or old people or people who cant walk much for injury or other reason. We cant make elitist cities. As I get older and my knees worse I really appreciate those who have to struggle. I love walking but its getting harder and harder.
Saying that Id love to get rid of most cars or make em all electric. I train to work and its nicer than driving and Id bike if it was remotely safe but its psycho to bike in Australia.
Electric bikes seem popular with the elderly in Japan. The British prefer golf carts.
Probably not if the headline has to be phrased as a question. :)
Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) the greenspaces Hamburg is proposing, I have an even cooler idea: turn them into lazy rivers[0]. I'd be totally down with commutes involving calm, aimless drifting on flotation devices.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_river
Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) the greenspaces Hamburg is proposing, I have an even cooler idea: turn them into lazy rivers[0]. I'd be totally down with commutes involving calm, aimless drifting on flotation devices.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_river
> It is an ambitious idea, but city officials obviously feel that the personal motorcar does not fulfill a function that walking, biking and taking public transport cannot.
Except fucking over the people who actually live there for the benefit of people who exist there transiently.
Except fucking over the people who actually live there for the benefit of people who exist there transiently.
'easytiger, when HN voters can't comprehend your writing, they downvote. While it's pretty clear to this somewhat-experienced reader of English-language online fora that "fucking over the people" is an action you ascribe to "the personal motorcar" rather than to "walking, biking and taking public transport", most respondents (thus, presumably, most voters) seem to have whooshed. Often we must be more verbose than we'd like, to communicate with those who are not in the habit of thinking while reading.
or you could just not mind the downvotes whether they are misunderstood, accidental, or random.
Can you explain? I live in the middle of a city and have no car, and would feel delighted, not fucked over, if cars were banned (or made to pay extremely steep usage fees) in the city center.
> I live in the middle of a city and have no car, and would feel delighted, not fucked over, if cars were banned
That doesn't seem to contradict the parent claim. You're saying you would be fine with banning something that you already don't use. A more relevant criticism would be if you did have a car in a city but still wouldn't mind cars being banned.
That doesn't seem to contradict the parent claim. You're saying you would be fine with banning something that you already don't use. A more relevant criticism would be if you did have a car in a city but still wouldn't mind cars being banned.
Perhaps we should allow Abrams tanks to be operated in the city as well because some people think it might be a more convenient way to get around?
Cars are awesome - they really are! So are helicopters. That doesn't mean one should have to drive a car just to buy a quart of milk.
Cars are awesome - they really are! So are helicopters. That doesn't mean one should have to drive a car just to buy a quart of milk.
I can make a similar argumentum ad absurdum, but on the other side. I don't like chocolate ice cream. I never eat it anyway, so I have absolutely no problem with it being banned.
When chocolate ice cream kills over 30,000 innocent people a year in the US, and about half a million around the world, every single year, that will become a valid argument. The point is that huge, heavy, and fast metal machines should not be permitted to operate in cities without substantially greater restriction.
The fact that you eat chocolate ice cream doesn't affect my health, only yours.
The fact that you drive a car affects the health of everyone living in the city, takes a huge amount of public space, and makes cities ugly and less habitable.
I guess you can understand the difference.
The fact that you drive a car affects the health of everyone living in the city, takes a huge amount of public space, and makes cities ugly and less habitable.
I guess you can understand the difference.
What about the people who live in a city but regularly need access to a rural area to visit relatives. At least in the UK mobility in the rural areas is effectively impossible without a car. If one has a life entirely in the city there is no option but to own a car in the city, say London, and use it to traverse the city to get out.
In London at least, during a normal working day 95%+ of traffic is commercial in nature. You can't stop that kind of traffic without stopping the ability of the city from functioning.
In London at least, during a normal working day 95%+ of traffic is commercial in nature. You can't stop that kind of traffic without stopping the ability of the city from functioning.
I live in Dublin, not London, but the situation you describe is why I use gocar on a pretty regular basis.
I own a car in the city, and would be thrilled if it (along with everyone else's car) was banned. Whatever benefits the car gives me would be far outweighed by the lack of all the other cars.
I assume they'd give me a chance to sell it, right?
I assume they'd give me a chance to sell it, right?
I have two cars. I'd be happy to see them strongly discouraged in the city in which I work. It'll be less convenient for me personally, but I think the city would be better off if street parking were seriously limited.
What? The plan provides car-free routes between desitnations, how does that fuck anyone over?
Who in this case is the one living there, and who is the one existing transiently?
Seems more likely that cyclists are local and motorists are not, no?
Seems more likely that cyclists are local and motorists are not, no?
Something I would love to see in NYC. Not as new of an idea as it might seem either, here's an old pamplet from the 60s about it
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/goodman-cars.htm
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/goodman-cars.htm
A few years ago the EU proposed banning cars in all major European cities by 2050. And they wanted to restrict 50% of all trabel over 186 miles to trains. The plan was rejected by the UK and was criticized as draconian.
In California, zoning specifies minimum numbers of parking spaces. In UK/Ireland, zoning specifies maximum number of spaces.
Zermatt, Switzerland. Car free city.
From the photos and Wikipedia description, I'm in love. I want to move there.
There are a few villages in the Swiss alps with no cars or very limited use of cars. In one I visited, a hotel owner picked up guests and their luggage from the gondola using something like a golf cart. It worked well - low speed, smaller, less dangerous, quieter, etc.
A small car-less resort town that makes its money in no small part by providing tourists with a pleasant experience isn't really a model for cities. (And it's a pretty mobbed place at the popular times of year.) If you just want to move someplace quiet with Internet access there are lots of options.
British Thermal Units? Surely that's an obsolete unit.
Gosh I hope we can figure this out in my lifetime.