4 ms·

In Europe most people do not drive in the cities. How is that anti social? On the contrary cars are hated: they contribute to noise pollution, real pollution, a

In Europe most people do not drive in the cities. How is that anti social? On the contrary cars are hated: they contribute to noise pollution, real pollution, accidents, etc. They take space and breaks paths for pedestrians, scooters, bikes, etc.

Silhouette 8y ago
In Europe most people do not drive in the cities. That's quite a generalisation. People in major cities like London and Paris would obviously like to clean up the pollution and reduce the noise and disruption, but the simple fact is that the existing public transport systems are not even close to having enough capacity to replace private motor transport entirely, and there zero chance of them having it any time soon. And those are the ideal cases, where there is enough demand to make a reasonably efficient and close-to-24/7 public transport network viable. Those in smaller cities have much worse options in terms of efficiency, availability and reliability, as do those travelling between or outside the bigger cities. You can't just ban cars to fix this, or price them off the roads with congestion charging or the equivalent. It would take a huge programme of investment in developing new mass transit alternatives and redesigning large parts of the overall transport infrastructure within cities to make forcible elimination of cars in favour of public transport a viable option, and any such plan would probably have to be implemented over a 50-100 year timescale, with those footing much of the bill never living to see the benefits. That's a tough sell for any political administration. I personally think that making private transport less intrusive and damaging has far more potential to improve the situation in the short to medium term. Infrastructure for electric vehicles is one obvious move in the right direction, but more generally, our road systems are still designed around the idea that one person making a journey with limited cargo needs a car-sized vehicle, which is horribly wasteful in road space, parking space, fuel consumption, etc. We have some very basic infrastructure in cities these days for bikes and we make some allowances for motorbikes, but these modes of transport have serious downsides for a lot of people. Crucially, the changes needed to improve those downsides would also allow, for example, smaller electric vehicles that are still fully enclosed and having space for carrying small loads in addition to their human occupant. Combine that with increasing automation over the next couple of decades for better safety and general efficiency, and most of us might at least still be alive to see the benefits.
- etiennemarcel 8y ago
  > public transport systems are not even close to having enough capacity to replace private motor transport entirely, and there zero chance of them having it any time soon. Paris is currently building more than 200km of subway (between now and 2030), a new suburban train line (RER E), 4 new tramway lines...
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    It's true that the French seem to be doing much better on this than we Brits are, but even so, the existing Paris metro is so over-subscribed much of the time that multiple new lines might still only be enough to make things more tolerable for the people who already travel that way. Getting everyone out of all those cars and onto public transport as well is an even harder problem, and it's an exceptionally difficult one to solve when you're working underneath big, established cities with a lot of history like London and Paris. In London we're only building one major new line at the moment, but some of the engineering they've had to do to make that line fit and to avoid disrupting daily life above and damaging important historical buildings during the tunnelling and construction work is remarkable.
- buckminster 8y ago
  You don't need new light rail networks. You've already got the roads so you start with buses. If cars were banned the bus companies would have no shortage of revenue. This could be done in a year, not 50.
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    The local authorities have been trying something resembling that strategy near me in Cambridge for years. It doesn't work. Even serious research commissioned by the local council a long time ago said it couldn't possibly achieve anything like the stated goals, yet they persist in the folly. It turns out that buses need effective interchanges to provide anything resembling useful connections. Those require a lot of space for the venue itself that typically is not available. They also require extremely high connectivity into and out of that venue, which is typically not how existing roads are configured. It also turns out that buses block up normal-width two-lane roads every time they stop. The amount of interference between just the buses themselves grows far faster than the number of buses on the road, because it is very difficult for them to pass each other when one is at a stop. They similarly cause obstructions to other road users in large motorised vehicles, including delivery vehicles and emergency services. And they force smaller, less visible and more vulnerable road users like cyclists, motorcyclists and crossing pedestrians into relatively dangerous situations when passing or crossing near them. Buses are efficient in terms of fuel/environmental considerations only in situations where there is a critical mass of passengers wanting to travel on the same route at the same time, which you do have in big cities like London and Paris, but don't in smaller ones. That leads to either having little or no service where there is less demand or running large vehicles that are actually less efficient than smaller private transport on a lot of routes outside of peak times. Bus journeys are inevitably very slow compared to private transport, because of the circuitous routes, frequent stops, large and slow vehicles, and often some extra time walking to and from the stop at each end of the journey. A typical journey by bus can easily take 2-4x as long as it would by car and may be little faster than walking and much slower than cycling at congested times. Buses lack flexibility, particularly for passengers carrying large amounts of baggage, unwieldy items like pushchairs, or themselves disabled and travelling with equipment like wheelchairs. Often there is not enough space on the bus if more than one or two people with extra things with them want to travel at once, and stories of people having to wait two or even three buses before they could get on are not unusual. Buses are horribly unhygienic compared to any form of private transportation, particularly in colder months when often there is little ventilation and lots of passengers generously sharing all of their bugs with everyone else aboard. Buses are less comfortable than almost any form of private transportation. Basically, buses suck. They may be somewhat more space and fuel efficient under ideal conditions, which often do not exist, and what advantages they do have in those respects are often mitigated or cancelled out by their numerous downsides. Almost any imaginable transport system, public or private, from simple walking and cycling to high-tech underground metro systems, is better than buses. Buses are awful.

Silhouette 8y ago

In Europe most people do not drive in the cities. That's quite a generalisation. People in major cities like London and Paris would obviously like to clean up the pollution and reduce the noise and disruption, but the simple fact is that the existing public transport systems are not even close to having enough capacity to replace private motor transport entirely, and there zero chance of them having it any time soon. And those are the ideal cases, where there is enough demand to make a reasonably efficient and close-to-24/7 public transport network viable. Those in smaller cities have much worse options in terms of efficiency, availability and reliability, as do those travelling between or outside the bigger cities. You can't just ban cars to fix this, or price them off the roads with congestion charging or the equivalent. It would take a huge programme of investment in developing new mass transit alternatives and redesigning large parts of the overall transport infrastructure within cities to make forcible elimination of cars in favour of public transport a viable option, and any such plan would probably have to be implemented over a 50-100 year timescale, with those footing much of the bill never living to see the benefits. That's a tough sell for any political administration. I personally think that making private transport less intrusive and damaging has far more potential to improve the situation in the short to medium term. Infrastructure for electric vehicles is one obvious move in the right direction, but more generally, our road systems are still designed around the idea that one person making a journey with limited cargo needs a car-sized vehicle, which is horribly wasteful in road space, parking space, fuel consumption, etc. We have some very basic infrastructure in cities these days for bikes and we make some allowances for motorbikes, but these modes of transport have serious downsides for a lot of people. Crucially, the changes needed to improve those downsides would also allow, for example, smaller electric vehicles that are still fully enclosed and having space for carrying small loads in addition to their human occupant. Combine that with increasing automation over the next couple of decades for better safety and general efficiency, and most of us might at least still be alive to see the benefits.

etiennemarcel 8y ago
> public transport systems are not even close to having enough capacity to replace private motor transport entirely, and there zero chance of them having it any time soon. Paris is currently building more than 200km of subway (between now and 2030), a new suburban train line (RER E), 4 new tramway lines...
- Silhouette 8y ago
  It's true that the French seem to be doing much better on this than we Brits are, but even so, the existing Paris metro is so over-subscribed much of the time that multiple new lines might still only be enough to make things more tolerable for the people who already travel that way. Getting everyone out of all those cars and onto public transport as well is an even harder problem, and it's an exceptionally difficult one to solve when you're working underneath big, established cities with a lot of history like London and Paris. In London we're only building one major new line at the moment, but some of the engineering they've had to do to make that line fit and to avoid disrupting daily life above and damaging important historical buildings during the tunnelling and construction work is remarkable.
buckminster 8y ago
You don't need new light rail networks. You've already got the roads so you start with buses. If cars were banned the bus companies would have no shortage of revenue. This could be done in a year, not 50.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  The local authorities have been trying something resembling that strategy near me in Cambridge for years. It doesn't work. Even serious research commissioned by the local council a long time ago said it couldn't possibly achieve anything like the stated goals, yet they persist in the folly. It turns out that buses need effective interchanges to provide anything resembling useful connections. Those require a lot of space for the venue itself that typically is not available. They also require extremely high connectivity into and out of that venue, which is typically not how existing roads are configured. It also turns out that buses block up normal-width two-lane roads every time they stop. The amount of interference between just the buses themselves grows far faster than the number of buses on the road, because it is very difficult for them to pass each other when one is at a stop. They similarly cause obstructions to other road users in large motorised vehicles, including delivery vehicles and emergency services. And they force smaller, less visible and more vulnerable road users like cyclists, motorcyclists and crossing pedestrians into relatively dangerous situations when passing or crossing near them. Buses are efficient in terms of fuel/environmental considerations only in situations where there is a critical mass of passengers wanting to travel on the same route at the same time, which you do have in big cities like London and Paris, but don't in smaller ones. That leads to either having little or no service where there is less demand or running large vehicles that are actually less efficient than smaller private transport on a lot of routes outside of peak times. Bus journeys are inevitably very slow compared to private transport, because of the circuitous routes, frequent stops, large and slow vehicles, and often some extra time walking to and from the stop at each end of the journey. A typical journey by bus can easily take 2-4x as long as it would by car and may be little faster than walking and much slower than cycling at congested times. Buses lack flexibility, particularly for passengers carrying large amounts of baggage, unwieldy items like pushchairs, or themselves disabled and travelling with equipment like wheelchairs. Often there is not enough space on the bus if more than one or two people with extra things with them want to travel at once, and stories of people having to wait two or even three buses before they could get on are not unusual. Buses are horribly unhygienic compared to any form of private transportation, particularly in colder months when often there is little ventilation and lots of passengers generously sharing all of their bugs with everyone else aboard. Buses are less comfortable than almost any form of private transportation. Basically, buses suck. They may be somewhat more space and fuel efficient under ideal conditions, which often do not exist, and what advantages they do have in those respects are often mitigated or cancelled out by their numerous downsides. Almost any imaginable transport system, public or private, from simple walking and cycling to high-tech underground metro systems, is better than buses. Buses are awful.