Oslo got pedestrian and cyclist deaths down to zero. Here’s how(wired.co.uk)
wired.co.uk
Oslo got pedestrian and cyclist deaths down to zero. Here’s how
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/oslo-pedestrianisation
113 comments
I'd argue the car based status quo is not great for the majority of less able bodied people in places like the UK though.
Especially when you think a lot of disabled people can not afford to drive or use taxis.
Eg. Drop kerbs are frequently missing, cars frequently park on pavements (sidewalks), limited formal crossing points.
Especially when you think a lot of disabled people can not afford to drive or use taxis.
Eg. Drop kerbs are frequently missing, cars frequently park on pavements (sidewalks), limited formal crossing points.
I've noticed that in the Netherlands a lot of the infrastructure for cyclists is also useful for people with mobility scooters. There are a lot of people unable to drive that benefit from decent cycle paths.
Yeah, in NL people with mobility issues can use Canta cars or mobility scooters on the bike lanes, though there has recently been some pushback as people who don't need the mobility aid have sometimes been using Birò cars (similar in size to the Canta) there, so there have been rules introduced, or at least proposed, about who can park them on the footpath, though I'm not totally up on the details of it.
The US is much better on this front than the UK. Not great for affording treatment, but there are curb cuts everywhere (in cities at least where there are sidewalks) and very few businesses are not handicap accessible.
But, an awful lot of accessibility is done simply to meet the letter of the law.
Yes, there are curb cuts. But, the sidewalk only exists on one side of a 4-lane road. Or worse, the sidewalks jumps back and forth, forcing frequent road crossings.
Or, there are curb cuts and sidewalks, but no crossing signal on a 40mph road (where actually flow is closer to 50mph).
The buildings might be accessible, but you have to get across acres of parking lot and dodge distracted driers pulling in/out of spaces.
Lots of room for improvement.
Yes, there are curb cuts. But, the sidewalk only exists on one side of a 4-lane road. Or worse, the sidewalks jumps back and forth, forcing frequent road crossings.
Or, there are curb cuts and sidewalks, but no crossing signal on a 40mph road (where actually flow is closer to 50mph).
The buildings might be accessible, but you have to get across acres of parking lot and dodge distracted driers pulling in/out of spaces.
Lots of room for improvement.
i heard a story from a friend - she wanted to walk to work for a difference (30 minute walk, a small city in california) and mid-way a sheriff pulled up to ask if everything is ok.
I have the almost the same story. My brother-in-law studied in Dallas and walked from his dorm, over a grass plain close to a highway, to his friend. A police car stopped and questioned him. Apparently a suspicious behaviour.
This is largely due to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accessibility in the US is mandatory.
And there a few law firms that specialize in shaking down cities across the US for large settlements.
While ADA access is important, it is not often the most important thing. But the lawsuits are forcing $100+ million settlements that take any prioritization of resources out of the hands of local voters or local legislatures.
Why spend $300million on sidewalks 'right now' when other services may be more effective (e.g., on demand shuttles, etc.)
While ADA access is important, it is not often the most important thing. But the lawsuits are forcing $100+ million settlements that take any prioritization of resources out of the hands of local voters or local legislatures.
Why spend $300million on sidewalks 'right now' when other services may be more effective (e.g., on demand shuttles, etc.)
> If you have trouble walking for any reason, it is really hard because cars have a hard time getting to many places you might need to go.
But how has the improvements for bicycling and pedestrians affected this? There might be many historic city planning reasons for these issues, not a new bicycle lane or other recent changes. Driving and finding parking in city center of Oslo have always been difficult, these changes has not significantly changed that. It has however encouraged more people to switch from car to bicycle or public transport + walking.
But how has the improvements for bicycling and pedestrians affected this? There might be many historic city planning reasons for these issues, not a new bicycle lane or other recent changes. Driving and finding parking in city center of Oslo have always been difficult, these changes has not significantly changed that. It has however encouraged more people to switch from car to bicycle or public transport + walking.
You're right -- the new bike paths etc have not affected this. It's more a function of how parking in downtown is virtually non-existent. So if you want to go there, you need to take a taxi or public transport (or have someone drive you, which is a luxury most people don't have).
Taxis here are insanely expensive and, while the public transport system is very good, it doesn't go everywhere. So, even if your destination is only, say, 300 meters from the bus stop, that can effectively be insurmountable distance for someone with mobility issues, especially in the winter.
Taxis here are insanely expensive and, while the public transport system is very good, it doesn't go everywhere. So, even if your destination is only, say, 300 meters from the bus stop, that can effectively be insurmountable distance for someone with mobility issues, especially in the winter.
It seems like a mobility scooter or electric trike could handle that kind of case?
They can handle a little bit but they can also be very uncomfortable in Oslo. The sidewalks are not completely level with drains for roof water/ice melting to run through, some sidewalks are not very scooter friendly and some streets are cobblestones and rattle quite hard any scooter or bike.
Apart from that you have loads of tram tracks going through the inner city, dangerous for bikes and there are very few bike lanes, most of the time bikes are sharing streets with cars, busses and trams at the same time.
Apart from that you have loads of tram tracks going through the inner city, dangerous for bikes and there are very few bike lanes, most of the time bikes are sharing streets with cars, busses and trams at the same time.
I agree that we need to think about accessibility when we eliminate cars. We took our little kids (~6 months and <2) to Paris and the lack of elevators in the vast majority of subway stops made the whole trip absolutely awful. Lugging a stroller up and down flights of stairs was not what I had imagined.
London and NYC have a similar lack of accessible subways.
London and NYC have a similar lack of accessible subways.
Thanks for posting! A couple of questions:
How does someone moving schlep their furniture around the city center?
How many people from outside Oslo come to visit the city every week?
How does someone moving schlep their furniture around the city center?
How many people from outside Oslo come to visit the city every week?
I've noticed a variety of small support vehicles in old city centers of Europe. Think of a small parts truck or forklift you might see in a factory. They're be sized to fit on sidewalks and between bollards. Larger trucks/vans unload as close as possible and these support vehicles handle take over for the last few meters.
> How does someone moving schlep their furniture around the city center?
It's still possible to get just about anywhere with a car, it's just made less convenient. The roads aren't physically blocked, ambulances and such have to be able to get everywhere. Moving day is a pretty rare event for any individual, so you just have to accept that you'll be a bit inconvenienced that day. If you don't own a car yourself you rent a moving van for the day. Street parking downtown is expensive, but it's just for that day. But since it's expensive there's hopefully less competition for the spaces. Then you have to navigate the streets to your new place with your car. It might be slow and you may have to take some detours because some streets are only for pedestrians, bikes and public transportation. But it's just for that day, the other days you are the pedestrian/biker/bus rider that can get around without worrying about cars on that street.
It's still possible to get just about anywhere with a car, it's just made less convenient. The roads aren't physically blocked, ambulances and such have to be able to get everywhere. Moving day is a pretty rare event for any individual, so you just have to accept that you'll be a bit inconvenienced that day. If you don't own a car yourself you rent a moving van for the day. Street parking downtown is expensive, but it's just for that day. But since it's expensive there's hopefully less competition for the spaces. Then you have to navigate the streets to your new place with your car. It might be slow and you may have to take some detours because some streets are only for pedestrians, bikes and public transportation. But it's just for that day, the other days you are the pedestrian/biker/bus rider that can get around without worrying about cars on that street.
Should electro bicycles not make such issues easier to handle?
Possibly, if you're able bodied enough to ride one of those.
Motorized wheelchair/scooter?
The savings from not building car infrastructure should easily pay for personal scooters.
The savings from not building car infrastructure should easily pay for personal scooters.
It's quite cold in Norway.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vigdis_Vandvik/publicat...
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vigdis_Vandvik/publicat...
Just curious, does cold affect people with disabilities more than people without, beyond the obvious non-linear difficulty increase for people with disabilities (ie something thats *2 difficulty increase for a person without disabilities is ^2 difficulty increase)? The only thing I can think of would be battery life of the mobility tools.
Mobility scooters have to be the slowest form of personal transportation. Since you arent getting exercise, it is that much harder to keep you core temp up. Depending on just how cold it is, that could change an unpleasant trip into a dangerous one.
Also, super specific to type of disease or disability, but my arthritis is way worse if I get cold. My hands are practically useless for half an hour after if I don't properly bundle up.
Also, super specific to type of disease or disability, but my arthritis is way worse if I get cold. My hands are practically useless for half an hour after if I don't properly bundle up.
If you have asthma or similar lung issues, it can get much more severe if you breathe cold air.
I've got a mild case and normally don't even think about it except for the two puffs of medicine a day, but if it's -15C or below I really notice my asthma and have to adjust my breathing technique, like breathing through the mouth with my tongue raised to heat the air before it hits the throat.
If you got a severe case you can get special masks[1] which contains a heat magazine/exchange element, however it restricts airflow so if you already struggle with shortness of breath this might not work for you.
[1]: https://lunginstitute.com/blog/ct-masks-for-copd/
I've got a mild case and normally don't even think about it except for the two puffs of medicine a day, but if it's -15C or below I really notice my asthma and have to adjust my breathing technique, like breathing through the mouth with my tongue raised to heat the air before it hits the throat.
If you got a severe case you can get special masks[1] which contains a heat magazine/exchange element, however it restricts airflow so if you already struggle with shortness of breath this might not work for you.
[1]: https://lunginstitute.com/blog/ct-masks-for-copd/
Keep in mind that walking and bicycling are both forms of exertion, which generates body heat.
So yes, cold DOES affect people with disabilities more, because they are not exerting themselves when out and about the way able-bodied people exert themselves.
So yes, cold DOES affect people with disabilities more, because they are not exerting themselves when out and about the way able-bodied people exert themselves.
Disabled often comes as a side effect of some other disease. Many of those also have the side effect of poor circulation. Thus cold is worse for them.
Now combine this with the points the others have raised.
Now combine this with the points the others have raised.
There are heated gloves and blankets that can be powered by the mobility scooter, however.
If you're not able bodied enough to ride a mobility scooter you probably shouldn't be driving a car.
You are not thinking of the wide range of disabilities. This is fine, you're not handicapped. It doesn't occur to you. It does have to occur to some of us, so your policy quick take is probably not well-conceived.
Quick, name the condition(s). I'll phrase it like a riddle: I can dance at your wedding but I cannot walk outside much of the time.
ROT13: Nal cubgbfrafvgvivgl qvfbeqre.
Quick, name the condition(s). I'll phrase it like a riddle: I can dance at your wedding but I cannot walk outside much of the time.
ROT13: Nal cubgbfrafvgvivgl qvfbeqre.
People who are not able to ride a mobility scooter may be able to ride as passengers in a car.
I’ve been to Oslo a couple of times now and both times I was amazed by the quality and cost of public transportation. The busses run frequently and go where you need them to go. There is a train that takes you to the outer areas and the airport. There’s really no excuse for most cities not to follow this model.
Cities struggle to build better public transport because car owners complain en masse about any impingement on their freedoms.
Car supremacy is a big wedge issue in Norway, which is paradoxically a big oil exporter, and the worlds leader in electric vehicle usage. It even has has its own single issue political party, I wonder if big oil money is behind it?
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/norways-drivers-rally-against-r...
Car supremacy is a big wedge issue in Norway, which is paradoxically a big oil exporter, and the worlds leader in electric vehicle usage. It even has has its own single issue political party, I wonder if big oil money is behind it?
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/norways-drivers-rally-against-r...
FNB is about "bompenger", basically a fee paid when crossing certain spots with your motor vehicle, often used to pay for road maintenance etc. Usually you have to cross one or more of these spots before getting into any major city. Since it's a flat fee, it disproportionally affects less affluent families, who often need their car more than the average family. These fees are often quite expensive. You might have to pay €5-10 to deliver the kids to kindergarten, and then get to work, if you live outside the city. That can be as much as €400 a month, just passive, unavoidable expanses for a lot of families. The reason FNB was founded is because these fees have increased substantially in recent years. The camel's back finally broke, and FNB became an actual political block in like a year.
I would argue FNB is a prime example of democracy working for the people. The two established ruling parties kept wringing money from people using bompenger until they had enough and took a lot of power for themselves.
I would argue FNB is a prime example of democracy working for the people. The two established ruling parties kept wringing money from people using bompenger until they had enough and took a lot of power for themselves.
> impingement on their freedoms.
It's funny what terms we choose (framing) can do. "death tax" instead of "inheritance tax", "driver's rights" instead of "driver's privileges." People all too often forget that driving in public places requires a license, it's not a right, it's a privilege that has to be earned.
It's funny what terms we choose (framing) can do. "death tax" instead of "inheritance tax", "driver's rights" instead of "driver's privileges." People all too often forget that driving in public places requires a license, it's not a right, it's a privilege that has to be earned.
[deleted]
That's a weird conspiracy theory, the FNB actually has valid complaints, although I disagree with them overall.
The way the green change has been implemented here in Norway has unfortunately often been extremely conservative (instead of progressive) - the well-off living centrally in the cities gets massive subsidies for purchasing their Teslas while the less fortunate needs to pay hefty tolls for their old gasoline cars.
The way the green change has been implemented here in Norway has unfortunately often been extremely conservative (instead of progressive) - the well-off living centrally in the cities gets massive subsidies for purchasing their Teslas while the less fortunate needs to pay hefty tolls for their old gasoline cars.
[deleted]
Yet people complain. I don't get it.
I'm quite new to the city myself, but I'm quite surprised by how much people complain about public transit and about cars getting increasingly banned from the city center. I would agree that the train service leaves something to be desired (but then again, I moved here from the train heaven that is Switzerland). But the subway, busses and trams are A+.
I'm quite new to the city myself, but I'm quite surprised by how much people complain about public transit and about cars getting increasingly banned from the city center. I would agree that the train service leaves something to be desired (but then again, I moved here from the train heaven that is Switzerland). But the subway, busses and trams are A+.
> (but then again, I moved here from the train heaven that is Switzerland)
I hiked the Haute Route last year, and while we were only on the trains and buses a handful of times, it was flawless every time. Like, they had things scheduled down to the minute, and no, not some multiple of 5 minutes, literal "train arrives at 10:42, train leaves at 10:44". Clean too. So nice.
I hiked the Haute Route last year, and while we were only on the trains and buses a handful of times, it was flawless every time. Like, they had things scheduled down to the minute, and no, not some multiple of 5 minutes, literal "train arrives at 10:42, train leaves at 10:44". Clean too. So nice.
Switzerland is well known for this. Part of this is they run the trains slower than they can go which gives plenty of ability to go faster if needed to meet the schedule. The schedule in turn is carefully designed so that where trains they all meet at the same time, thus ensuring you can switch trains and so you wouldn't want your train to go faster even though it could in theory.
There are two good ways to run a good transport system: a carefully planned timetable so that you always know when your train arrives, and once you get on all your connections are easy to make. The other is as fast and frequent as possible, you never know when your next train will arrive but it will be soon enough that you don't care anyway. The second is somewhat better, but vastly more expensive.
There are two good ways to run a good transport system: a carefully planned timetable so that you always know when your train arrives, and once you get on all your connections are easy to make. The other is as fast and frequent as possible, you never know when your next train will arrive but it will be soon enough that you don't care anyway. The second is somewhat better, but vastly more expensive.
This is my whole experience in Europe. People complaining about their "late" [impeccable] trains.
I'm like eehhh, okay, wait till you see the United States!
The only culture shock to me is that union strikes can actually have an affect on convenience or quality of life, they're more like mosquitos buzzing in your ear if a protest has gone on for over a week in the US. I don't have an opinion, and that's part of the privilege!
I'm like eehhh, okay, wait till you see the United States!
The only culture shock to me is that union strikes can actually have an affect on convenience or quality of life, they're more like mosquitos buzzing in your ear if a protest has gone on for over a week in the US. I don't have an opinion, and that's part of the privilege!
Especially in Finland with a single government-run train company that routinely makes announcements like "the trains are late because we didn't anticipate it raining snow". In winter. In Finland.
Try Japan. Trains run on time to the second, so precisely that time tables printed on paper to the second are accurate.
Try Japan. Trains run on time to the second, so precisely that time tables printed on paper to the second are accurate.
> union strikes can actually have an affect on convenience or quality of life
I never understood why transport unions effectively run their strikes against the passengers instead of against the governments (most of them are state owned or heavily subsidized here in Europe.) They should go to protest in front of the government offices and not jeopardizing the lives of citizens, who could be their allies. Instead everybody ends up hating transport workers. My bet: a traditional strike helps the careers inside the unions. Going against the government doesn't.
I never understood why transport unions effectively run their strikes against the passengers instead of against the governments (most of them are state owned or heavily subsidized here in Europe.) They should go to protest in front of the government offices and not jeopardizing the lives of citizens, who could be their allies. Instead everybody ends up hating transport workers. My bet: a traditional strike helps the careers inside the unions. Going against the government doesn't.
I mean in the UK ours are terrible. We dream of European efficiency as much as you do.
Having moved from Germany to the UK I'm actually positively surprised by public transport which I rely on every day. (living in London). The only thing I've noticed is that it is quite expensive.
Erm... when the trains are late in the US it can be by hours (NY -- Boston), or even a day or so (on the transcontinental route).
Amtrak gets severely outcompeted on most routes by a somewhat informal "chinatown" bus network.
Amtrak gets severely outcompeted on most routes by a somewhat informal "chinatown" bus network.
Yeah. I'm British, and a few years ago spent several weeks travelling around the US by Amtrak. Not one of my trains was actually on time, and the Sunset Limited (LA -> New Orleans) was over a day late. Our trains aren't great for punctuality, but they're nowhere near that bad.
Of course, the reasons are somewhat different, too. In the UK the problem is mostly that the tracks are very heavily timetabled with passenger trains, such that there's very little slack: an issue with one service can screw up an entire chunk of the network with effects that last for hours. In the US, freight trains have priority outside the Northeast Corridor, so we would get looped for several hours to wait for a train of oil tankers going the other way.
Of course, the reasons are somewhat different, too. In the UK the problem is mostly that the tracks are very heavily timetabled with passenger trains, such that there's very little slack: an issue with one service can screw up an entire chunk of the network with effects that last for hours. In the US, freight trains have priority outside the Northeast Corridor, so we would get looped for several hours to wait for a train of oil tankers going the other way.
Doesn't this have something to do with priority given to freight rail in the US?
Hehe, I remember my first train journey in the US. I believe it was Philly to NYC. I remember thinking "hey, what are they complaining about!? This is totally fine!" before I was told that together with like one other corridor like this in California(?), that's essentially full the extent of usable US rail service?
Not a coincidence, really. The NE corridor is the only area in the US that has Europe-like population density.
That's the full extent of tolerable long distance commuter rail service.
The issue is that it can't be modernized to be faster and quieter in an economical way. Actually the issue is that its too uneconomical to do so, the current trains are not economical. This is whether we are referring to that high traffic corridor or to anywhere else.
The issue is that it can't be modernized to be faster and quieter in an economical way. Actually the issue is that its too uneconomical to do so, the current trains are not economical. This is whether we are referring to that high traffic corridor or to anywhere else.
As rail advocates point out, it could be modernized in an economical way. However the leaders don't care to. They decide a station that isn't accessible needs to be completely rebuilt into a palace instead of adding a few ramps. And many other similar things where what could be done cheap if they wanted get ballooned into large payments to do something expensive but not really needed.
The NE Corridor is actually profitable for Amtrak (in normal times). The problem is that Amtrak then proceeds to lose its NE Corridor profits on pretty much every other train route in the country.
Amtrak basically is 3 different types of services, especially after PRRIA 2008 changed the funding structure.
- Northeast Corridor - Makes a solid operating profit (normally), run by Amtrak.
- State-supported corridor services - The states are basically paying the subsidy required to run the service and deciding what they want. If the state wants to upgrade the line for faster service, run more trains, etc, and they want to pay for it, Amtrak will run it. In some cases, the states (WA + CA come to mind) own or part-own the equipment being run as well. This is most other "practical" services (NY Empire Service, WA/OR Cascades, etc) and where you're seeing most improvements/investments.
- Long-distance network - They run once a day or less, they're where most of the hours/days late horror stories come from, they almost all lose money, federal government pays and dictates that they run it. Mostly impractical as transportation for people who have any other option for how to get somewhere. That said, the loss isn't that big as a financial number (in part, because there's not that much service), and it's basically a matter of political calculus as well....lots of rural senators who sign off on Amtrak funding in substantial part because of their one or two trains a day.
- Northeast Corridor - Makes a solid operating profit (normally), run by Amtrak.
- State-supported corridor services - The states are basically paying the subsidy required to run the service and deciding what they want. If the state wants to upgrade the line for faster service, run more trains, etc, and they want to pay for it, Amtrak will run it. In some cases, the states (WA + CA come to mind) own or part-own the equipment being run as well. This is most other "practical" services (NY Empire Service, WA/OR Cascades, etc) and where you're seeing most improvements/investments.
- Long-distance network - They run once a day or less, they're where most of the hours/days late horror stories come from, they almost all lose money, federal government pays and dictates that they run it. Mostly impractical as transportation for people who have any other option for how to get somewhere. That said, the loss isn't that big as a financial number (in part, because there's not that much service), and it's basically a matter of political calculus as well....lots of rural senators who sign off on Amtrak funding in substantial part because of their one or two trains a day.
One weird wrinkle here that nobody has mentioned yet:
In the US, freight trains have priority over passenger trains. As far as I know, generally in Europe it's the opposite.
In the US, freight trains have priority over passenger trains. As far as I know, generally in Europe it's the opposite.
Why understanding is that isn't quite true (though I may be wrong). I've been told that Amtrak does have scheduled slots but, if they miss the slot, they're now at the mercy of the freight trains. And the rail network in most of the country is optimized for freight trains which can be extremely long and slow.
For California, travelling on a Zephyr line from Los Angeles to San Diego was a very pleasant experience.
I wonder if Joe Biden “Amtrak Joe” will make a change, since he is such a big fan of trains.
Well, no. And one wonders to what degree Amtrak plans will be pushed out because of the plunge in travel. It's also easy to be a fan of trains if you live in the Northeast Corridor. More or less uniquely in the US other than a handful of other city pairs.
I think that part of the human condition is that we are smart enough to quite easily imagine perfectly operating systems. It is simple to imagine the train that is always on time to the second, the politician who is 100% ethical, a good judge of character, works hard, and has broad relevant knowledge. It is possible to imagine the construction company that always finishes the roads on time and with high quality.
But for humans to actually do all of these things is extremely hard. We only recently were very much like a primate we see in the wild. We have tons of ambition and imagination but all the flaws of a prototype intelligent creature. We can't always think clearly, emotions often get in the way when we can, we get tired, we have conflicting drives and feedback loops that mean we are never truly satisfied no matter how good we have it.
such is life.
But for humans to actually do all of these things is extremely hard. We only recently were very much like a primate we see in the wild. We have tons of ambition and imagination but all the flaws of a prototype intelligent creature. We can't always think clearly, emotions often get in the way when we can, we get tired, we have conflicting drives and feedback loops that mean we are never truly satisfied no matter how good we have it.
such is life.
I imagine that there are very few places in the world where people universally love their public transit if they're dependent on it day-to-day. Whether it's cost, frequency, coverage, reliability, frequency, comfort, etc., something that seems perfectly adequate or even pretty great to a sometimes visitor seems less so if you're commuting at rush hour every day in all sorts of weather.
You mention Swiss train service for example which seemed pretty great as a visitor--but it sure wasn't cheap as is true of a lot of European train service. Ditto for the Shinkanzen in Japan.
My personal experience is Boston. As someone who takes rail into the city and then the subway maybe a few times a year, it seems just fine. When I depended on it for regular commuting, I did not love it.
You mention Swiss train service for example which seemed pretty great as a visitor--but it sure wasn't cheap as is true of a lot of European train service. Ditto for the Shinkanzen in Japan.
My personal experience is Boston. As someone who takes rail into the city and then the subway maybe a few times a year, it seems just fine. When I depended on it for regular commuting, I did not love it.
> You mention Swiss train service for example which seemed pretty great as a visitor--but it sure wasn't cheap as is true of a lot of European train service.
The thing is, if you're not a visitor, you'd buy an AG or a demi-tarif (perhaps with a contribution from your employer). The former gives you free unlimited use on almost all public transit (including trains and busses), or alternatively, the latter gives you approximately a 50% discount on the price you paid as a tourist. The latter is quite commonly sponsored by your employer – and even if not, both types pay off very quickly if you actually commute by public transit.
The thing is, if you're not a visitor, you'd buy an AG or a demi-tarif (perhaps with a contribution from your employer). The former gives you free unlimited use on almost all public transit (including trains and busses), or alternatively, the latter gives you approximately a 50% discount on the price you paid as a tourist. The latter is quite commonly sponsored by your employer – and even if not, both types pay off very quickly if you actually commute by public transit.
Even if you're only in Switzerland for a couple weeks the half fare card (CHF 185 for a year) can make sense.
Considering that a 1st class return ticket from Zurich to Bern is 180 Francs (2nd class 102) just three or four longer train rides can make it worthwhile.
The better option (if you're not living in Switzerland) may be the Swiss Travel Pass[1], which gives you free travel for a number of days on virtually the whole Swiss train and public transport network (excluding the most mountainous connections and cable cars, which are usually private and there you get a 50% discount) plus a number of other goodies.
Prices are comparable to what you pay for a JR Rail Pass in Japan. And that's a helluva buy.
In any case practically nobody pays full price for longer range train travel in Switzerland.
[1] https://www.myswitzerland.com/en-ch/planning/transport-accom...
Considering that a 1st class return ticket from Zurich to Bern is 180 Francs (2nd class 102) just three or four longer train rides can make it worthwhile.
The better option (if you're not living in Switzerland) may be the Swiss Travel Pass[1], which gives you free travel for a number of days on virtually the whole Swiss train and public transport network (excluding the most mountainous connections and cable cars, which are usually private and there you get a 50% discount) plus a number of other goodies.
Prices are comparable to what you pay for a JR Rail Pass in Japan. And that's a helluva buy.
In any case practically nobody pays full price for longer range train travel in Switzerland.
[1] https://www.myswitzerland.com/en-ch/planning/transport-accom...
I’m in the EU, commutes by train 2h 30min roundtrip daily since a few years (except this year). I don’t mind it.
To be fair though you probably wouldn't have loved commuting into the city in a car either.
I certainly did not. I took the train by preference if I was going into the city "9-5"; my office was a short walk from the station. But the train was useless if I was doing something in the evening because it ran so infrequently outside of commuting hours. Frankly it was not a commute I could have handled long term--about 90 minutes door to door--even though I didn't have to do it every day.
That is probably because you look at it from too narrow a position. Yes, the public transport inside Oslo may be brilliant. That is very good for transporting people around who lives inside Oslo, but chances are that a lot of people cannot afford or want to live there. For probably each kilometer extra you move away from the city center, the difficulty using public transport increases exponentially. Once you get to 50-100km away from the city center, then your options look very bleak.
I live in Copenhagen myself, but I grew up 100km outside of Copenhagen. Using a car to go back and forth from there to Copenhagen takes approximately 1 hour each way. Using public transportation all the way takes closer to 2 hours. Using a combination takes 1h 30min on a good day.
Some people move out of cities because they want the countryside. But other people are forced to do so because of prices. Banning cars from cities seems to only think of people who lives inside it and not how difficult it will be for a lot of people already "taxed" with hour long commutes because of stupidly expensive housing combined with centralization of workplaces.
I live in Copenhagen myself, but I grew up 100km outside of Copenhagen. Using a car to go back and forth from there to Copenhagen takes approximately 1 hour each way. Using public transportation all the way takes closer to 2 hours. Using a combination takes 1h 30min on a good day.
Some people move out of cities because they want the countryside. But other people are forced to do so because of prices. Banning cars from cities seems to only think of people who lives inside it and not how difficult it will be for a lot of people already "taxed" with hour long commutes because of stupidly expensive housing combined with centralization of workplaces.
> Once you get to 50-100km away from the city center, then your options look very bleak.
I'd say that at 100 km you're no longer talking about that city's public transit anymore (for a city this size). At 50 km I'd maybe agree with you. That's also a bit of what I meant to indicate with the Swiss trains comment – the (heavy rail) train services indeed aren't great around Oslo.
> I live in Copenhagen myself, but I grew up 100km outside of Copenhagen. Using a car to go back and forth from there to Copenhagen takes approximately 1 hour each way. Using public transportation all the way takes closer to 2 hours. Using a combination takes 1h 30min on a good day.
But then again, in fairness, at 100 km outside of Copenhagen you're halfway to Germany! It's getting to be a stretch for a commute anyway, is it not?
> Banning cars from cities seems to only think of people who lives inside it and not how difficult it will be for a lot of people already "taxed" with hour long commutes because of stupidly expensive housing combined with centralization of workplaces.
Well, in return, those people do get vastly cheaper housing (I'm well aware that suburban housing around Oslo and Copenhagen is still very very expensive, but once you start hitting the 100 km range that certainly stops being the case).
Adapting cities to be car-friendly make them sprawly, congested or pedestrian-unfriendly. Or all three.
I'd say that at 100 km you're no longer talking about that city's public transit anymore (for a city this size). At 50 km I'd maybe agree with you. That's also a bit of what I meant to indicate with the Swiss trains comment – the (heavy rail) train services indeed aren't great around Oslo.
> I live in Copenhagen myself, but I grew up 100km outside of Copenhagen. Using a car to go back and forth from there to Copenhagen takes approximately 1 hour each way. Using public transportation all the way takes closer to 2 hours. Using a combination takes 1h 30min on a good day.
But then again, in fairness, at 100 km outside of Copenhagen you're halfway to Germany! It's getting to be a stretch for a commute anyway, is it not?
> Banning cars from cities seems to only think of people who lives inside it and not how difficult it will be for a lot of people already "taxed" with hour long commutes because of stupidly expensive housing combined with centralization of workplaces.
Well, in return, those people do get vastly cheaper housing (I'm well aware that suburban housing around Oslo and Copenhagen is still very very expensive, but once you start hitting the 100 km range that certainly stops being the case).
Adapting cities to be car-friendly make them sprawly, congested or pedestrian-unfriendly. Or all three.
Your entire complaint is about high rents, not about cars.
If you had less intra city public transport and biking you would take even longer to get to your destination in the city because now you’d be taxing the same roads with people who are going 2 kms via car instead of on a bike. Further, as happened in many American cities, entire neighborhoods would be razed to build highways and parking lots to support those cars further reducing housing capacity in the city center, and making housing even more expensive.
If you had less intra city public transport and biking you would take even longer to get to your destination in the city because now you’d be taxing the same roads with people who are going 2 kms via car instead of on a bike. Further, as happened in many American cities, entire neighborhoods would be razed to build highways and parking lots to support those cars further reducing housing capacity in the city center, and making housing even more expensive.
Copenhagen's public transport system has amazing individual components, that unfortunately don't mix very well.
Want to go to Copenhagen, sure, take the train. Need to get somewhere inside Copenhagen? Just take the S trains from the train station until you reach one of the smaller stops, get on a bus, walk a few hundred metres, and get on the metro, and then change to another bus.
As you say, getting to Copenhagen is easy. Getting around between two points not connected by the same types of public transport? It's a time-consuming nightmare. It's a good thing down-town Copenhagen is a good city for biking, or it would be a total traffic disaster.
Want to go to Copenhagen, sure, take the train. Need to get somewhere inside Copenhagen? Just take the S trains from the train station until you reach one of the smaller stops, get on a bus, walk a few hundred metres, and get on the metro, and then change to another bus.
As you say, getting to Copenhagen is easy. Getting around between two points not connected by the same types of public transport? It's a time-consuming nightmare. It's a good thing down-town Copenhagen is a good city for biking, or it would be a total traffic disaster.
I'm in the same situation with the nearest major city. The train actually makes sense to go in and out on a work day if I need to for some reason given how bad rush hour traffic is. But it's a non-starter for an evening event. I just wouldn't go in if you made it too hard for me to drive and park. (Which the city can absolutely do of course.)
Why wouldn't you use the train for the non-work event?
I don't know where you live. What I do know is in many cities they run 2-4 train in for those who start work at 8am, and then run them back out at 5 pm after the people get off work. If this is your case, as it is for many, then I agree. They don't want you to take the train to those evening events.
It doesn't have to be this way. A train could run every 5 minutes all day long. If your city did this would you still insist on driving?
I don't know where you live. What I do know is in many cities they run 2-4 train in for those who start work at 8am, and then run them back out at 5 pm after the people get off work. If this is your case, as it is for many, then I agree. They don't want you to take the train to those evening events.
It doesn't have to be this way. A train could run every 5 minutes all day long. If your city did this would you still insist on driving?
First of all, it takes 90 minutes to take the train--and probably another 30 minutes if I need to take the subway in the city to connect with the train. It takes an hour to drive outside of rush hour.
The train runs about every 90 minutes outside of rush hour. So it's a non-starter for a night event.
So, sure, I'd use a much faster and far more frequent train if it existed. But that's a wildly different situation from what exists today. And this is a US location (Boston/Cambridge) that has relatively good transit--and I live fairly close to an exurban train station.
The train runs about every 90 minutes outside of rush hour. So it's a non-starter for a night event.
So, sure, I'd use a much faster and far more frequent train if it existed. But that's a wildly different situation from what exists today. And this is a US location (Boston/Cambridge) that has relatively good transit--and I live fairly close to an exurban train station.
Well, see my Copenhagen example abuve for one reason. The Metro goes every 5 minutes, but if you need to go somewhere where you need to switch between the metro and some other form of public transport then you'll usually double the time required.
The fact that it's cheaper for three people to take a taxi instead of going with public transport doesn't help either.
The fact that it's cheaper for three people to take a taxi instead of going with public transport doesn't help either.
you don't have a traffic problem if you can go 100km in one hour.
i live a similar distance from a larger city, and here it's quite the reverse. it takes one hour on the train, and two hours by car.
i live a similar distance from a larger city, and here it's quite the reverse. it takes one hour on the train, and two hours by car.
People always complain. What matters is their behavior. In most bigger cities, getting around by car stopped being a thing as it is time consuming and not much fun. Places like London, Amsterdam, Paris, etc. outright ban cars from a lot of streets and make it stupidly expensive to park. A weird side effect of that is that a lot of the remaining cars tend to be of the expensive/oversized variety.
But the reality for most is that people get around by bike and public transport and tend to prefer that to getting stuck in traffic and then having to hunt for parking space.
I live in Berlin which is unusually car friendly for a European city because of the German car lobby. You can literally drive up to places like the Alexanderplatz and expect to find a spot to park there (with some difficulty). But even in Berlin, owning a car is not a given for most people that live there. It's just not very practical. I've never bothered owning one and probably never will. With what I save on not owning a car, I can easily afford to rent cars or use taxis/ubers when I need to; which is not that often actually.
Berlin is comparatively unorganized when it comes to protecting bike traffic. Coming from the Netherlands, it feels a bit like a third world country on this front. Infrastructure is poor/non existent and Berlin excels at creating safety challenged situations for cyclists where you randomly get to mingle with heavy traffic, deal with delivery vans using the bike lanes as parking areas, etc. Mostly places like Oslo and other bike friendly cities differ from this by separating flows of traffic systematically. Of course compared to the US, Germany is still pretty good.
But the reality for most is that people get around by bike and public transport and tend to prefer that to getting stuck in traffic and then having to hunt for parking space.
I live in Berlin which is unusually car friendly for a European city because of the German car lobby. You can literally drive up to places like the Alexanderplatz and expect to find a spot to park there (with some difficulty). But even in Berlin, owning a car is not a given for most people that live there. It's just not very practical. I've never bothered owning one and probably never will. With what I save on not owning a car, I can easily afford to rent cars or use taxis/ubers when I need to; which is not that often actually.
Berlin is comparatively unorganized when it comes to protecting bike traffic. Coming from the Netherlands, it feels a bit like a third world country on this front. Infrastructure is poor/non existent and Berlin excels at creating safety challenged situations for cyclists where you randomly get to mingle with heavy traffic, deal with delivery vans using the bike lanes as parking areas, etc. Mostly places like Oslo and other bike friendly cities differ from this by separating flows of traffic systematically. Of course compared to the US, Germany is still pretty good.
"t. There’s really no excuse for most cities not to follow this model."
Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund owns 2% of the entire world's publicly traded stocks.
They have so much money the fight over what to do with it.
They are an Oil rich state, like Qatar, Kuwait.
When you have that kind of surplus, a lot of things become easy.
For the rest of the world, the issue is money: either you raise taxes, increase fares, take on more debt (or invade a rich country), none of which are good options.
Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund owns 2% of the entire world's publicly traded stocks.
They have so much money the fight over what to do with it.
They are an Oil rich state, like Qatar, Kuwait.
When you have that kind of surplus, a lot of things become easy.
For the rest of the world, the issue is money: either you raise taxes, increase fares, take on more debt (or invade a rich country), none of which are good options.
It’s actually not that good. I lived in Oslo for a year and the main problem is that service stops at around midnight so you either have to walk or take a taxi which is incredibly expensive.
Luckily, the city isn’t that large so walking works most of the time.
Luckily, the city isn’t that large so walking works most of the time.
There have been some related threads on this subject:
"Oslo made its city center basically car-free" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19000076
"Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver traffic deaths in 2019" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21933868
"Oslo made its city center basically car-free" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19000076
"Oslo had 0 pedestrian, 0 cyclist, 0 children and 1 driver traffic deaths in 2019" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21933868
> London show 73 pedestrian and six cyclist fatalities in 2019
London has a 13 times the population of Oslo, so they are on the same order of magnitude in regards to pedestrian and cyclist deaths.
London has a 13 times the population of Oslo, so they are on the same order of magnitude in regards to pedestrian and cyclist deaths.
If you take the average Oslo deaths over 2019 and 2020, which is 0.5, then London would have one order of magnitude more deaths per capita than London.
Not that simple. I have a hunch that network effects play huge role too. Chances of london having two orders of magnitude car/pedestrian interactions more than also are not low. So the chances of fatality per interaction could be comparable. But you have shitload more of them in london since everything is bigger there so you clock more miles.
Maybe cities of different size cannot be compared 1 to 1 and due to it’s size it’s London being orders of magnitude better?
We don’t know that, so it doesn’t really make sense yo compare them.
We don’t know that, so it doesn’t really make sense yo compare them.
Here's a good comparison. Portland has a population of ~600,000 and there were 50 traffic deaths in 2019: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/12/vision-zero-por...
What Oslo has been able to accomplish is truly astonishing.
What Oslo has been able to accomplish is truly astonishing.
Could it possibly be the well educated populous that drives with sense and caution? Just asking, as in the states we have people going 50mph (80.4kmh) on residential streets in front of parks full of kids, people running, etc.
I live near a park. The speed limit is 25mph. I have been driving down that street at 29mph, and had people _pass_ my car, blowing the horn and yelling (on a completely residential two lane) like I was standing still. This is a common, everyday occurrence.
I live near a park. The speed limit is 25mph. I have been driving down that street at 29mph, and had people _pass_ my car, blowing the horn and yelling (on a completely residential two lane) like I was standing still. This is a common, everyday occurrence.
Maybe the road has been (mis)designed for faster speeds? Wide, straight roads have a "natural" high speed limit. The slightly counter-intuitive solution is to make residential roads narrow and winding, which makes drivers slow down. Or at least it should have road bumps.
Speed humps make a huge difference. I lived on a road where it was 25 but naturally you would want to go 35. After installing speed humps people would slow down instead of coasting down a hill gaining speed.
It takes two to have a mulit-party accident. You can have the best educated drivers and the most draconian enforcement in the world but if everyone else acts like it's a college campus you're gonna get a lot of red road paint. The cities without a lot of traffic fatalities tend to have traffic that behaves a lot like the industrial facilities where there aren't a lot of traffic mishaps (and industry has been studying this a lot longer because they have an obvious stake in the issue). Namely classes of traffic have to interact with each over only minimally, interactions only happen in defined places and all classes of traffic behave very conservatively.
Also, if people are getting so bent out of shape as to pass you and honk at you with any sort of regularity that's a good heuristic for the speed limit and/or your adherence to it being inappropriate for the construction and conditions of the road.
Also, if people are getting so bent out of shape as to pass you and honk at you with any sort of regularity that's a good heuristic for the speed limit and/or your adherence to it being inappropriate for the construction and conditions of the road.
I like the elevated walkways present in central Hong Kong, I’d never seen a system like that to keep pedestrians away from the cars passing below for congested areas. It’s not like Las Vegas where there are a few bridges over the large streets; in Hong Kong one can walk blocks on walkways above the streets in the busy areas.
This was especially nice for US visitors since the traffic comes from an unexpected direction.
In contrast to this, I find Amsterdam, one of my favorite cities, to be full of street crossings with cars, bikes, and trains to worry about.
In contrast to this, I find Amsterdam, one of my favorite cities, to be full of street crossings with cars, bikes, and trains to worry about.
The first I heard of this concept was in a book called "Eco-topia". Since then, I've seen it in a few places but they are always extremely touristy.
I would like to see things like this further from downtown, and less large.
I would like to see things like this further from downtown, and less large.
Like most articles on this topic, this one also ignores the most basic question, which is whether a goal of 'zero deaths' is desirable. Any such goal must be considered against the tradeoffs. Life in general, is not safe. If someone desires perfect safety, they would need to shelter themselves aggressively, avoid people, avoid activities, and minimize risks from all angles as much as they can. This is of course, unrealistic and undesirable for most people. Everyone is assuming risks all the time for purposes they think are worth the risk. The Vision Zero goal of 'zero deaths' isn't a more virtuous balance between risk and reward than any other goal.
Now onto the tradeoffs: Cars have many advantages over walking, cycling, and public transportation. If you avoid the tipping point of building too much density, cars are simply much more convenient and faster. You don't have to build your life around public transportation schedules. You don't need to wait for a bus or train to arrive. You don't need to plan walking time to/from the bus stop or train station into your schedule. You can avoid the harassment, filth, and hazards (like uncapped needles) that come with public transportation. Cycling has its own inconveniences from dealing with steep slopes, to arriving sweaty at your destination, to weather exposure, to rampant bike theft, and more. In terms of raw speed, cars are are simply much faster than either public transportation or cycling unless the city has purposely made driving significantly worse (with poor road design, by eliminating parking spaces or lanes, building too much density, setting artificially low speed limits, etc.).
Another element that I often see ignored is what life is actually like in the pedestrian/cycling-heavy Northern European cities that are so often painted as utopias. As someone who has spent lots of time in these cities/countries, I have to disagree with the notion that quality of life is somehow better there. Self-reported happiness surveys are not good evidence. Life there felt boring to me. It feels like you have a playpen within which you can move around and live, but that's it. If you want to have full/productive days where you can visit friends, go out of town for a hike, do your shopping, shuttle kids to a game, and so forth - it's simply not possible. Any travel outside the playpen (city centers) is difficult and inconvenient, and you simply don't have time to go do things to the same extent you would in many US cities. In part due to transportation choices and city design, but also due to other things that add up to "culture", life there is distinctly less social and more introverted relative to American cities.
This doesn't have to be your set of values and preferences, but I feel it's important to recognize why many of us value cities and countries that have great infrastructure for cars. Often times, I see comments that express incredulity that others may value these things and bemoaning the slow adoption of [their preferred modes of transportation]. The reality is that many of us simply value different things.
Now onto the tradeoffs: Cars have many advantages over walking, cycling, and public transportation. If you avoid the tipping point of building too much density, cars are simply much more convenient and faster. You don't have to build your life around public transportation schedules. You don't need to wait for a bus or train to arrive. You don't need to plan walking time to/from the bus stop or train station into your schedule. You can avoid the harassment, filth, and hazards (like uncapped needles) that come with public transportation. Cycling has its own inconveniences from dealing with steep slopes, to arriving sweaty at your destination, to weather exposure, to rampant bike theft, and more. In terms of raw speed, cars are are simply much faster than either public transportation or cycling unless the city has purposely made driving significantly worse (with poor road design, by eliminating parking spaces or lanes, building too much density, setting artificially low speed limits, etc.).
Another element that I often see ignored is what life is actually like in the pedestrian/cycling-heavy Northern European cities that are so often painted as utopias. As someone who has spent lots of time in these cities/countries, I have to disagree with the notion that quality of life is somehow better there. Self-reported happiness surveys are not good evidence. Life there felt boring to me. It feels like you have a playpen within which you can move around and live, but that's it. If you want to have full/productive days where you can visit friends, go out of town for a hike, do your shopping, shuttle kids to a game, and so forth - it's simply not possible. Any travel outside the playpen (city centers) is difficult and inconvenient, and you simply don't have time to go do things to the same extent you would in many US cities. In part due to transportation choices and city design, but also due to other things that add up to "culture", life there is distinctly less social and more introverted relative to American cities.
This doesn't have to be your set of values and preferences, but I feel it's important to recognize why many of us value cities and countries that have great infrastructure for cars. Often times, I see comments that express incredulity that others may value these things and bemoaning the slow adoption of [their preferred modes of transportation]. The reality is that many of us simply value different things.
Its a difficult issue. Cars suck for liveable cities, but they're also better at transportation than anything else regarding cost, flexibility and time. They're a piece of freedom, but with high externalities. I can see why the US loves them so much, and why Europe doesn't. I also think it is kind of strange that "number of deaths" is such an important metric for some: automatic safety systems will soon be commonplace in all new cars, so this will naturally converge to zero over time.
I'm using car-sharing myself, but finding a car and walking there is very annoying. Wouldn't it be nice if you could summon a car when you needed one, out of a pool that is large enough to never have availability issues?
I'm using car-sharing myself, but finding a car and walking there is very annoying. Wouldn't it be nice if you could summon a car when you needed one, out of a pool that is large enough to never have availability issues?
I'm trying hard to think how many lives is a worthy tradeoff for all the things you mentioned. One death for the sweat and waiting? Two for the steep slopes and bike theft?
Oslo is, like, quite small. You can't really get somewhere without transport in London or New York.
I get around New York almost exclusively by bicycle and it's easily the fastest way to get around, even if I'm going from Central Brooklyn to Harlem or further
New York City is the worst example of an American city you could have chosen. Because it's bounded by water on all sides, it's the one American city that has developed in an extremely dense manner and is thus walkable. You are right for essentially any other American city, though.
Yeah, a lot of people visiting NYC never leave a relatively small area of Manhattan. I don't mind walking relatively long distances (and I'm fine with taking the NYC subway) but on my typical NYC visit I never use anything other than my feet to get around. The same is somewhat true of London though I'm more likely to get on the tube there.
Added: It depends too on where you're going in the city. There are a fair number of US cities where walking works fine so long as you restrict your travel mostly to the city core, which people often do on a short trip.
Added: It depends too on where you're going in the city. There are a fair number of US cities where walking works fine so long as you restrict your travel mostly to the city core, which people often do on a short trip.
Perhaps I'm being a little pedantic here, but NYC is not bounded on all sides by water - the Bronx is part of mainland NYS. But yes - for the most part NYC is geographically constrained.
They switched many inner cities to pedastrian-only zones in Germany decades ago. What becomes more and more apparent now is that it seems to slowly but surely kill retail in inner cities. It starts with people getting their groceries at the outskirts of cities. More and more retail then is attached to those supermarkets and people only do clothes and specialty items shopping in the cities anymore which incidentally are the categories most people buy on the internet by now (its just more convenient then spending a fortune on parking and then walking for 15 minutes to get to the shop you want to get to).
In the end, while it sounds nice, in the age to the internet people are too lazy to keep a pedestrian-only inner cities viable from a retail perspective.
In the end, while it sounds nice, in the age to the internet people are too lazy to keep a pedestrian-only inner cities viable from a retail perspective.
In general walkable cities actually rejuvenate brick and mortar because people actually take the time out to visit, go out and eat, rather than just driving back to the store and home. So while some types of business may be negatively impacted (large stores with little customer service or any reason to actually spend time), areas generally improve if they're walkable.
Pontevedra in Spain which is a car-free city, has seen great economic recovery and population increase.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/sep/18/paradise-life...
Pontevedra in Spain which is a car-free city, has seen great economic recovery and population increase.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/sep/18/paradise-life...
Do pedastrian-only zones or the internet kill retail?
Pedestrian-only zones probably help specific types of retail--"tourist" (using the term broadly) type of stuff for people walking around the pedestrian area for fun. But, honestly, cities aren't great for heavy/bulky shopping anyway.
I normally go into the tourist area of my nearest major city maybe a few times a year and mostly because my company has an office nearby. But I appreciate pedestrian zones when I travel. (Last time I was in Brussels, the new pedestrian zone almost made that area of one of my least favorite European capitals almost pleasant.)
I normally go into the tourist area of my nearest major city maybe a few times a year and mostly because my company has an office nearby. But I appreciate pedestrian zones when I travel. (Last time I was in Brussels, the new pedestrian zone almost made that area of one of my least favorite European capitals almost pleasant.)
The problem with pedestrian only zones is how to haul the bounty to the place you live. There are rarely good scalable solutions.
Both. It’s enjoyable to go shopping once in a while. If you get treated properly and it’s easy to go there, why not? Even a small increase in price is totally acceptable. But if none of those things apply, Amazon it is. This seems to have happened with my rather small city next to the Ruhrgebiet
If retail still exists, just not in inner cities, then it wasn't the Internet.
people getting their groceries locally instead of driving in to the centre of a city is a good outcome, though perhaps not for all of the inner city supermarkets. I am deeply unconvinced this is a broader problem - e.g. Regent St or Oxford St are still global-level retail hubs even though driving there is a nightmare.
>people getting their groceries locally instead of driving in to the centre of a city is a good outcome,
No this is not. It limits competition (increases prices) raising the cost of living and reducing everyone's standard of living. When it gets so bad that the options for groceries start vanishing (because groceries are low margin) we call that a "food desert".
People shopping locally because the opportunity cost of shopping elsewhere is too high (as opposed to willingly doing it for the convenience factor) is very much not a good thing, regardless of the mode of transportation those people are using.
No this is not. It limits competition (increases prices) raising the cost of living and reducing everyone's standard of living. When it gets so bad that the options for groceries start vanishing (because groceries are low margin) we call that a "food desert".
People shopping locally because the opportunity cost of shopping elsewhere is too high (as opposed to willingly doing it for the convenience factor) is very much not a good thing, regardless of the mode of transportation those people are using.
Does it though? Where I live there are probably three different supermarket chain stores within about 500m, so easy walking distance. If I expand that to 1km because I feel like biking a short way, there'd be dozens of more shops and probably a few more different brands. This isn't even including the multiple non-chain ones. There doesn't seem to be any risk of a food desert here.
Anyway, this is 2019 data. It should be noted that there was a tragic accident in early 2020 when a 2-year-old was struck and killed. If there were others this year, I have not heard about it, but I don't know for sure.
So, it still happens. But, it is rare enough that it is really big news when it does.