3 ms·
“No street would need to be completely cut off from vehicular traffic; emergency services could get through and transport for the disabled, just as they do in p
by thawaway1837 7y ago
“No street would need to be completely cut off from vehicular traffic; emergency services could get through and transport for the disabled, just as they do in places like Ghent, Belgium, where the city center has been car-free since 2017.”
Every street is still accessible by car. You simply wouldn’t want to go on the pedestrian streets until you absolutely have to because like in car free European cities today, you’d be intermingling with pedestrians with a speed limit of like 5mph.
You’d simply drive the vast majority of the way on the car streets, and then the last 20-30m on the 5mph street so you can take your stuff up to your doorstep.
- kijin 7y agoIf that's what you're proposing, there's no need to use clickbait words like "ban cars from Manhattan". You're just shifting the incentive structure so that people will be less inclined to use a car.
- badfrog 7y agoYes, the article is horribly misnamed.
- andybp85 7y agoI did read that before I posted that comment, and the explanation isn't what I got from it. Things like productions (catering services come to mind too) fall into a very different category than emergency or humanitarian services. I could support something that allows exceptions for reasonable needs. I think focusing on the history as justification perhaps results in an incomplete argument. What people care about is how is this going to affect my life, so to really convince people who currently rely on cars to do business and make stuff happen in NYC, one needs to explain the implementation and how it won't make their lives way harder. That being said, I love history, especially the history of the places my life is intertwined with, and I enjoyed the article in that regard.