23 ms·

> If you want to get rid of cars, you have to provide some alternative (preferably better) mode of transportation for the people and stuff within them. Are we

by enoch_r 10y ago

> If you want to get rid of cars, you have to provide some alternative (preferably better) mode of transportation for the people and stuff within them. Are we participating in the same conversations? In my experience, people trying to "get rid of cars" generally advocate for public transit and bike/pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. Their goal might be something like Copenhagen or Amsterdam. They're certainly not looking forward to living in a wasteland full of people wishing they had some way to travel across town. Case in point, you seem to have come away from this article thinking it's saying "ban cars for no reason!" when in fact it has a heavy focus on making life better for pedestrians. Traveling by foot is a form of transportation!

maxsilver 10y ago
Advocate for isn't the same as doing. In practice, the "get rid of cars" part happens (because it's free), and bike lanes get drawn (because it's effectively free to paint lines). But the transit never gets built (because that would cost money). The net amount of transit capacity drops in most of these changes, even as most cities are experiencing population growth. For example, this article mentions building superblocks in NYC, while neglecting to mention that NYC subway system has been over capacity for over a year - http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-subway-system-cant-keep-pace-with-growing-number-of-riders-1458762858 http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-subway-system-cant-kee... Superblocks in NYC would literally eliminate transit capacity and replace it with nothing. It's net destruction to capacity. It's suburbanizing an urban environment. > Traveling by foot is a form of transportation! I love to walk too, but if walking were a viable option, the cars wouldn't exist in the first place. This isn't some American stripmall being discussed -- Both NYC and Barcelona are already quite dense, and some of the most walkable cities on Earth. If more walking were possible, it would already occur. And yet, some people are still driving cars there, even though it's already extremely inconvenient to do so. We should be studying why it's occurring, and offering up legitimate alternatives that are better than the current solution. --- It's a common new urbanist trope, to read some Jane Jacobs and then blame cars for every problem in the entire universe. But cars aren't some evil villain -- they simply represent a person, who needed to go to a place, in a reasonable amount of time. The best way to eliminate cars is not to punish that person who just wanted to get somewhere efficiently -- they've done no wrong. The best way to reduce cars is to provide better (cheaper, faster, easier, safer) ways to get places that don't require cars, let people voluntarily choose these better options. New urbanists are great at talking about that. But they're not great at actually doing that. They'd (usually) rather hit people with sticks, than offer up carrots. Which is a shame.
- chris_7 10y ago
  > But cars aren't some evil villain -- they simply represent a person, who needed to go to a place, in a reasonable amount of time. They also represent negative externalities - both in air/noise (HONK HONK HONK) pollution and in human cost. Why should a person who chose to take up more space and introduce these externalities be favored over a person that is using significantly less space and not producing those externalities. > The best way to reduce cars is to provide better (cheaper, faster, easier, safer) ways to get places that don't require cars This requires removing the cars! Buses don't work well if the streets are clogged with cars (see: 23rd St. a few months ago vs. 23rd St. now, a huge improvement, and SBS hasn't even been enabled yet). Opponents of street safety improvements love to scream above truck deliveries, but truck deliveries would certainly be easy if there weren't private cars and taxis clogging up the street and using free parking, instead of having empty streets and adequate loading-only zones. > They'd (usually) rather hit people with sticks, than offer up carrots. Is hitting people with metaphorical sticks worse than hitting them with literal cars? That's what's happening in New York currently, people are run down all the time, and the killers get away with it almost every time. This isn't just about walkability, it's about crossing the street without feeling like my life is in danger. I've almost never seen a car be ready to turn and actually stay out of the crosswalk until all of the people have left it. Who murdered Matthew Von Ohlen? The police found the car that did it, will we ever find out who owns it? Probably not.
- megablast 10y ago
  > I love to walk too, but if walking were a viable option, the cars wouldn't exist in the first place. Bullshit. Walking is a viable option for a lot of people. So is cycling, and public transport. Driving is just too easy, takes you from where you are right now, with no waiting, climate controlled. You could never beat that with any other system.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  There is a very limited amount of space in dense cities like Manhattan. Every bit of space needs to be maximized. Free on-street parking is a very poor use of publicly owned space. Lots of people making individual trips in private vehicles is another poor use of publicly owned space. It makes sense to maximize the total utility of the space for all. If that inconveniences some drivers for the benefit of the much larger number of people who can make better trips now that single-occupant vehicles are deprioritized, so be it. I live in a dense part of Manhattan. I barely know anyone who owns a car, and the few who do do not rely on them for daily transportation; they're more of a "weekend fun get-away" kind of thing. I bike everywhere, but I recognize that a lot of people who otherwise would do not because they are (rightfully) afraid of how dangerous it can be. Start to deprioritize cars, further densify Citi Bike, and you will see an explosion of trips taken via bike. The vast, vast majority of trips that occur in Manhattan are already not being made by private cars, so we don't particularly view it as a big loss if that is cut down further to the detriment of 5% of people if it benefits the other 95% who walk/bike/take transit everywhere. But again, you seem to be under the impression that we want to get rid of cars and not do anything to improve transit. That simply isn't the case. We want better mass transit, we want more subway lines, we want faster bus service that runs in exclusive lanes that doesn't get gummed up by other vehicles, we want more bike lanes, and we want the elimination of free on-street parking to pay for some of it and make room for all of the above.

by enoch_r 10y ago

maxsilver 10y ago

Advocate for isn't the same as doing. In practice, the "get rid of cars" part happens (because it's free), and bike lanes get drawn (because it's effectively free to paint lines). But the transit never gets built (because that would cost money). The net amount of transit capacity drops in most of these changes, even as most cities are experiencing population growth. For example, this article mentions building superblocks in NYC, while neglecting to mention that NYC subway system has been over capacity for over a year - http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-subway-system-cant-keep-pace-with-growing-number-of-riders-1458762858 http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-subway-system-cant-kee... Superblocks in NYC would literally eliminate transit capacity and replace it with nothing. It's net destruction to capacity. It's suburbanizing an urban environment. > Traveling by foot is a form of transportation! I love to walk too, but if walking were a viable option, the cars wouldn't exist in the first place. This isn't some American stripmall being discussed -- Both NYC and Barcelona are already quite dense, and some of the most walkable cities on Earth. If more walking were possible, it would already occur. And yet, some people are still driving cars there, even though it's already extremely inconvenient to do so. We should be studying why it's occurring, and offering up legitimate alternatives that are better than the current solution. --- It's a common new urbanist trope, to read some Jane Jacobs and then blame cars for every problem in the entire universe. But cars aren't some evil villain -- they simply represent a person, who needed to go to a place, in a reasonable amount of time. The best way to eliminate cars is not to punish that person who just wanted to get somewhere efficiently -- they've done no wrong. The best way to reduce cars is to provide better (cheaper, faster, easier, safer) ways to get places that don't require cars, let people voluntarily choose these better options. New urbanists are great at talking about that. But they're not great at actually doing that. They'd (usually) rather hit people with sticks, than offer up carrots. Which is a shame.

chris_7 10y ago
> But cars aren't some evil villain -- they simply represent a person, who needed to go to a place, in a reasonable amount of time. They also represent negative externalities - both in air/noise (HONK HONK HONK) pollution and in human cost. Why should a person who chose to take up more space and introduce these externalities be favored over a person that is using significantly less space and not producing those externalities. > The best way to reduce cars is to provide better (cheaper, faster, easier, safer) ways to get places that don't require cars This requires removing the cars! Buses don't work well if the streets are clogged with cars (see: 23rd St. a few months ago vs. 23rd St. now, a huge improvement, and SBS hasn't even been enabled yet). Opponents of street safety improvements love to scream above truck deliveries, but truck deliveries would certainly be easy if there weren't private cars and taxis clogging up the street and using free parking, instead of having empty streets and adequate loading-only zones. > They'd (usually) rather hit people with sticks, than offer up carrots. Is hitting people with metaphorical sticks worse than hitting them with literal cars? That's what's happening in New York currently, people are run down all the time, and the killers get away with it almost every time. This isn't just about walkability, it's about crossing the street without feeling like my life is in danger. I've almost never seen a car be ready to turn and actually stay out of the crosswalk until all of the people have left it. Who murdered Matthew Von Ohlen? The police found the car that did it, will we ever find out who owns it? Probably not.
megablast 10y ago
> I love to walk too, but if walking were a viable option, the cars wouldn't exist in the first place. Bullshit. Walking is a viable option for a lot of people. So is cycling, and public transport. Driving is just too easy, takes you from where you are right now, with no waiting, climate controlled. You could never beat that with any other system.
CydeWeys 10y ago
There is a very limited amount of space in dense cities like Manhattan. Every bit of space needs to be maximized. Free on-street parking is a very poor use of publicly owned space. Lots of people making individual trips in private vehicles is another poor use of publicly owned space. It makes sense to maximize the total utility of the space for all. If that inconveniences some drivers for the benefit of the much larger number of people who can make better trips now that single-occupant vehicles are deprioritized, so be it. I live in a dense part of Manhattan. I barely know anyone who owns a car, and the few who do do not rely on them for daily transportation; they're more of a "weekend fun get-away" kind of thing. I bike everywhere, but I recognize that a lot of people who otherwise would do not because they are (rightfully) afraid of how dangerous it can be. Start to deprioritize cars, further densify Citi Bike, and you will see an explosion of trips taken via bike. The vast, vast majority of trips that occur in Manhattan are already not being made by private cars, so we don't particularly view it as a big loss if that is cut down further to the detriment of 5% of people if it benefits the other 95% who walk/bike/take transit everywhere. But again, you seem to be under the impression that we want to get rid of cars and not do anything to improve transit. That simply isn't the case. We want better mass transit, we want more subway lines, we want faster bus service that runs in exclusive lanes that doesn't get gummed up by other vehicles, we want more bike lanes, and we want the elimination of free on-street parking to pay for some of it and make room for all of the above.