4 ms·

Which is a reason why cars have to vanish from cities.

by myspy 7y ago

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Then cities have to radically change. I don't know how people can ever commute from the current urban sprawl to their place of work without them. Cities would need to build massive bus and rail infrastructures at the cost of billions or similar amounts are going to have to be spent to increase densification. I chose where to live because of a desire to be able to commute easily - the bus is 10 minutes, walking is about 25 - but I paid for it, both literally and figuratively.
- freen 7y ago
  They can, and they have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    I believe you're looking at a city that was historically traveled via footpath - try and apply that to a modern American city.
- magduf 7y ago
  Simple: they need to bulldoze most everything and start over, building cities the way they are in Europe with high density and public transit lines built in (and under). Add in either closed roads for anything except delivery trucks (you can't deliver goods to the supermarket with a subway), or huge tolls/taxes for personal vehicles to keep people from driving there and causing gridlock and get them out of the suburbs. But in addition you need to have lots of construction of residential units (in high-rises) so that housing costs stay affordable.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or you think that's actually feasible and simple.
    - turtlecloud 7y ago
      You need to have the political will. There is nothing in the previous comment that is physically impossible.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        No, you're right - but to say it's simple is ridiculous. That will take the entire city being willing to be displaced for years - millions of people without homes - what does the political will for that look like?
        magduf 7y ago
        Well you don't need to do it all at once, and you don't really need to bulldoze every building and road. It would be more realistic to just "upzone" as the other commenter said, and stop accommodating car transport so much and start aggressively redeveloping after adding public transit infrastructure (which would be a lot cheaper and easier if you bulldoze along the routes so you can do cut-and-cover instead of digging tunnels).
        SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        While you do that in the core, the outside of the city still grows, and that's all car based - there's no way around a city expanding and not building it for cars, unless you get the bus infrastructure out there before the people show up, which would appear to be a monumental waste when every city in the world's focus seems to be cutting taxes.
        magduf 7y ago
        The cities in America grow because there's various incentives for them to do so, and nothing really constraining that growth in a way that favors cars. Don't build new roads to the core, maybe even take out, restrict, or slap huge tolls on the existing roads, and you'll keep people from wanting to commute in by car. Also remove rules requiring parking spaces, and even encourage replacing parking lots with buildings or parks or anything else, to make car driving the most miserable experience it can possibly be There's lots a government can do to make people stop driving cars so much, and stop moving out to the suburbs. There just isn't political will (in America) to do so.
  - nrook 7y ago
    Er, you definitely don't need to bulldoze everything. You "just" need to upzone everywhere and build lots of public transit. Upzoning has negative price (since you get more tax income). Public transit is expensive, and building new subway lines is even more expensive, but it could be less expensive if the US could build transit lines as cheaply as they are built in Europe. It is hard, but it's mostly hard due to a population of motorists who have confused the privileges granted to them by the state with rights.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  I've had three jobs where I commuted from 10-30 miles over public transit. All those long commutes were either suburb to suburb or from city to suburb via reverse commute. There’s no need to drive a car if you’re commuting to a fixed location and you live in the burbs or the city.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    What were your long commutes? 1-2 hours? Why would people accept that when a car can do that in a quarter the time?
    - mac01021 7y ago
      They will if car taxes increase. And if ridership increases enough, then bus commute times will be reduced a great deal.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        People will pay a lot for the convenience - I think of all my coworkers who need to go pick their kids up from school to take them to soccer practice after work - that's really hard to do commuting.
        bsanr 7y ago
        Is it? Robust transit systems are efficient and don't take much more time. If it's substantially longer, maybe we need to look at our work attendance policies to account for the increased transit time? (We already needed to do that anyway, considering how little of the average workday is spent on actual work, and how much less the average labor hour is worth today compared to a few decades ago.) And how old are the kids? Alien as it is to suburbanites, city kids often get around by themselves (often in groups) by the end of elementary school.
        wool_gather 7y ago
        The kids need to be picked up in a car partly (largely?) because there's no alternative. Given increased public transit, they may be able to get themselves to soccer practice.
- mac01021 7y ago
  I'm not sure how much ifrastructure is really needed most places. Could we just use existing roads, and try to replace every 30 cars on the road with a bus?
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    That's what I mean - if you assume 100,000 cars on the road, that's 3,000 new buses the city needs, as well as multiples of that more bus drivers.
fromthestart 7y ago
I think you're drastically underestimating the ratio of benefit to cost for cars in cities. That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say.
tossAfterUsing 7y ago
That's a great idea! https://arcosanti.org/project/about-arcosanti/ https://arcosanti.org/project/about-arcosanti/
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Which is a reason why cars have to vanish from cities.

by myspy 7y ago

Which is a reason why cars have to vanish from cities.

Then cities have to radically change. I don't know how people can ever commute from the current urban sprawl to their place of work without them. Cities would need to build massive bus and rail infrastructures at the cost of billions or similar amounts are going to have to be spent to increase densification. I chose where to live because of a desire to be able to commute easily - the bus is 10 minutes, walking is about 25 - but I paid for it, both literally and figuratively.

freen 7y ago
They can, and they have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  I believe you're looking at a city that was historically traveled via footpath - try and apply that to a modern American city.
magduf 7y ago
Simple: they need to bulldoze most everything and start over, building cities the way they are in Europe with high density and public transit lines built in (and under). Add in either closed roads for anything except delivery trucks (you can't deliver goods to the supermarket with a subway), or huge tolls/taxes for personal vehicles to keep people from driving there and causing gridlock and get them out of the suburbs. But in addition you need to have lots of construction of residential units (in high-rises) so that housing costs stay affordable.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or you think that's actually feasible and simple.
  - turtlecloud 7y ago
    You need to have the political will. There is nothing in the previous comment that is physically impossible.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      No, you're right - but to say it's simple is ridiculous. That will take the entire city being willing to be displaced for years - millions of people without homes - what does the political will for that look like?
      - magduf 7y ago
        Well you don't need to do it all at once, and you don't really need to bulldoze every building and road. It would be more realistic to just "upzone" as the other commenter said, and stop accommodating car transport so much and start aggressively redeveloping after adding public transit infrastructure (which would be a lot cheaper and easier if you bulldoze along the routes so you can do cut-and-cover instead of digging tunnels).
        SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        While you do that in the core, the outside of the city still grows, and that's all car based - there's no way around a city expanding and not building it for cars, unless you get the bus infrastructure out there before the people show up, which would appear to be a monumental waste when every city in the world's focus seems to be cutting taxes.
        magduf 7y ago
        The cities in America grow because there's various incentives for them to do so, and nothing really constraining that growth in a way that favors cars. Don't build new roads to the core, maybe even take out, restrict, or slap huge tolls on the existing roads, and you'll keep people from wanting to commute in by car. Also remove rules requiring parking spaces, and even encourage replacing parking lots with buildings or parks or anything else, to make car driving the most miserable experience it can possibly be There's lots a government can do to make people stop driving cars so much, and stop moving out to the suburbs. There just isn't political will (in America) to do so.
- nrook 7y ago
  Er, you definitely don't need to bulldoze everything. You "just" need to upzone everywhere and build lots of public transit. Upzoning has negative price (since you get more tax income). Public transit is expensive, and building new subway lines is even more expensive, but it could be less expensive if the US could build transit lines as cheaply as they are built in Europe. It is hard, but it's mostly hard due to a population of motorists who have confused the privileges granted to them by the state with rights.
jdavis703 7y ago
I've had three jobs where I commuted from 10-30 miles over public transit. All those long commutes were either suburb to suburb or from city to suburb via reverse commute. There’s no need to drive a car if you’re commuting to a fixed location and you live in the burbs or the city.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  What were your long commutes? 1-2 hours? Why would people accept that when a car can do that in a quarter the time?
  - mac01021 7y ago
    They will if car taxes increase. And if ridership increases enough, then bus commute times will be reduced a great deal.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      People will pay a lot for the convenience - I think of all my coworkers who need to go pick their kids up from school to take them to soccer practice after work - that's really hard to do commuting.
      - bsanr 7y ago
        Is it? Robust transit systems are efficient and don't take much more time. If it's substantially longer, maybe we need to look at our work attendance policies to account for the increased transit time? (We already needed to do that anyway, considering how little of the average workday is spent on actual work, and how much less the average labor hour is worth today compared to a few decades ago.) And how old are the kids? Alien as it is to suburbanites, city kids often get around by themselves (often in groups) by the end of elementary school.
      - wool_gather 7y ago
        The kids need to be picked up in a car partly (largely?) because there's no alternative. Given increased public transit, they may be able to get themselves to soccer practice.
mac01021 7y ago
I'm not sure how much ifrastructure is really needed most places. Could we just use existing roads, and try to replace every 30 cars on the road with a bus?
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  That's what I mean - if you assume 100,000 cars on the road, that's 3,000 new buses the city needs, as well as multiples of that more bus drivers.

fromthestart 7y ago

I think you're drastically underestimating the ratio of benefit to cost for cars in cities. That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say.

tossAfterUsing 7y ago

That's a great idea! https://arcosanti.org/project/about-arcosanti/ https://arcosanti.org/project/about-arcosanti/

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]