5 ms·

They did not build alternatives for people. They social engineered people to do what they wanted them to do. They slapped ridiculous taxes on cars and forced pe

They did not build alternatives for people. They social engineered people to do what they wanted them to do. They slapped ridiculous taxes on cars and forced people to seek other means of transportation. Then they made it difficult and unaffordable to park in the city and built those extensive bike lanes. To me as someone who grew up in a communist country reeks of communism. Dont take me wrong I am not saying cars are necessary but having a car to me equals having the freedom of choice. Now I live in Seoul and I usually commute by taking the subway but If I need to go to a district that is not in the vicinity of the extensive subway network in Seoul I take the car. It's fast and reliable.

jacobush 7y ago
You could just as well turn all of those statements around and say the same thing.
TYPE_FASTER 7y ago
They turned two lane narrow roads into four wide lane undivided roads with no shoulder or sidewalk or crosswalk, other than traffic lights half a mile to a mile apart. They provided no public transportation. They subsidized fossil fuel production. The freedom of the car is an illusion unless there are other options.
JohnStrangeII 7y ago
It's a great city, I still miss living there. I used to use public transport to go to work and it was awesome. Going to work by bike on large bike lanes is even better. Not to speak of the lack of car noise, which is the most annoying thing in cities - though you won't realise that until you experience a car-free day or zone for the first time. I'm currently living in Lisbon, which also has a very good living quality, but I'd say that the living quality in Copenhagen is unparalleled. I'd move there anytime if I had a good job opportunity there. I still work in Academia and Copenhagen University does not have many open positions, so no chance for me. Not that I complain about Lisbon's sunshine. You can still have a car in Copenhagen, if you really want one, you know. It's not a matter of choices, it's a matter of nudging people in the right direction and tax them in a way that improves living quality and society as a whole. However, living in a low/no-traffic area can only be appreciated properly once you've experienced it. IMHO, it's one of those things that need to be experienced before forming an informed opinion. That's why it can be hard to sell politically.
- frabbit 7y ago
  > the lack of car noise This is one of my bugbears. Setting to one side the obvious GHG-emissions problems with moving people by cars, the noise they make and the visual impact they have are huge reasons why I prefer areas with as few cars as possible.
mikeash 7y ago
They didn’t make it expensive and difficult to park in the city. It is inherently expensive and difficult, because space is valuable and cars take up a lot of it. What they did is expose that expense and difficulty directly to the car owner rather than subsidizing it. Surely having the government pay for a gigantic road network and vast amounts of parking spaces and making it all available to people for free is more like communism?
- simonebrunozzi 7y ago
  I agree. The opposite is true elsewhere: most cities in the world, especially in the US, subsidize cars and parking.
plesner 7y ago
They're not ridiculous taxes, they more or less match the immediate cost to society of private car ownership: maintaining the road networks, health care for people involved in accidents or sick because of pollution, etc. If car owners paid the indirect expenses as well, environmental impact, the value of the land occupied by roads and parking, etc, the taxes would be much much higher. Even in Denmark car ownership is massively subsidised.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
They social engineered people to do what they wanted them to do. That is exactly what has happened in the car centric parts of the world. It took a lot of work by the car and road lobby to get us where we are now.
chvid 7y ago
There is some truth in what you are writing but many cities can become nicer by being more accommodating to bicycles without turning into high-taxed welfare societies.

jacobush 7y ago

You could just as well turn all of those statements around and say the same thing.

TYPE_FASTER 7y ago

They turned two lane narrow roads into four wide lane undivided roads with no shoulder or sidewalk or crosswalk, other than traffic lights half a mile to a mile apart. They provided no public transportation. They subsidized fossil fuel production. The freedom of the car is an illusion unless there are other options.

JohnStrangeII 7y ago

It's a great city, I still miss living there. I used to use public transport to go to work and it was awesome. Going to work by bike on large bike lanes is even better. Not to speak of the lack of car noise, which is the most annoying thing in cities - though you won't realise that until you experience a car-free day or zone for the first time. I'm currently living in Lisbon, which also has a very good living quality, but I'd say that the living quality in Copenhagen is unparalleled. I'd move there anytime if I had a good job opportunity there. I still work in Academia and Copenhagen University does not have many open positions, so no chance for me. Not that I complain about Lisbon's sunshine. You can still have a car in Copenhagen, if you really want one, you know. It's not a matter of choices, it's a matter of nudging people in the right direction and tax them in a way that improves living quality and society as a whole. However, living in a low/no-traffic area can only be appreciated properly once you've experienced it. IMHO, it's one of those things that need to be experienced before forming an informed opinion. That's why it can be hard to sell politically.

frabbit 7y ago
> the lack of car noise This is one of my bugbears. Setting to one side the obvious GHG-emissions problems with moving people by cars, the noise they make and the visual impact they have are huge reasons why I prefer areas with as few cars as possible.

mikeash 7y ago

They didn’t make it expensive and difficult to park in the city. It is inherently expensive and difficult, because space is valuable and cars take up a lot of it. What they did is expose that expense and difficulty directly to the car owner rather than subsidizing it. Surely having the government pay for a gigantic road network and vast amounts of parking spaces and making it all available to people for free is more like communism?

simonebrunozzi 7y ago
I agree. The opposite is true elsewhere: most cities in the world, especially in the US, subsidize cars and parking.

plesner 7y ago

They're not ridiculous taxes, they more or less match the immediate cost to society of private car ownership: maintaining the road networks, health care for people involved in accidents or sick because of pollution, etc. If car owners paid the indirect expenses as well, environmental impact, the value of the land occupied by roads and parking, etc, the taxes would be much much higher. Even in Denmark car ownership is massively subsidised.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

They social engineered people to do what they wanted them to do. That is exactly what has happened in the car centric parts of the world. It took a lot of work by the car and road lobby to get us where we are now.

chvid 7y ago

There is some truth in what you are writing but many cities can become nicer by being more accommodating to bicycles without turning into high-taxed welfare societies.