5 ms·

I don't understand this anti-car sentiment from the city liberals. It's already happened here in London and it's getting worse. From 20mph speed limits to block

I don't understand this anti-car sentiment from the city liberals. It's already happened here in London and it's getting worse. From 20mph speed limits to blocking roads for bus-only traffic to ultra-low emission zones and congestion charges. It's becoming pretty clear that they don't want people to own their own cars. I'm struggling to see how this is progress.

snovv_crash 7y ago
In the city, space is a limited resource. Hogging limited resources is generally considered rude, whether you're liberal or conservative, urban or rural. The difference is just what people consider a limited resource.
omosubi 7y ago
Because cars have a lot of externalities that negatively affect cities? Pollution, noise, increase in collisions, space required to house and fuel them to name a few. I, and many other people, prefer areas of cities where cars aren't dominant and would like to see more of it
- electric_muse 7y ago
  But I’m not sure this is a widely held preference. Seems to be a vocal minority trying to impose their will on others.
  - omosubi 7y ago
    That may be true but it's largely how our political system works. Regardless, you can try to fight back or just move to someplace that has the density and mobility you want.
  - audunw 7y ago
    Any data on that? Here around Oslo, there is quite a bit of opposition to banning cars from the city - but mostly from people living outside of it. People who live in the city, and who should have the most say, seems to like it. The green party grew in the recent election. Data has shown that businesses are doing well. Some do better, some the same, some worse (like furniture stores, which is a silly thing to have in a city centre anyway). There's certainly a growing preference for car-free cities. Seems to me like younger people prefer it. Not just because they don't have cars.. I do now, but I really don't like to use it in the city. My wife and I take it to the closest metro station with free parking, and take the metro the rest of the way. Much less stressful. Seems to me like it is mostly old people who are opposed to banning cars. When they were young, the cities were not as dense, cars not as prevalent, and people didn't care as much about air pollution. They could drive straight into the city centre and park wherever. They don't want to give up on that, even if it means being stuck in traffic and driving around the city centre for half an hour to find a free parking spot. It's an inconvenience they've gotten used to. But the inconveniences of public transportation? Unbearable!
    - rubyboss 7y ago
      Last time I was in Oslo it looked like the network of motorways in the city were well developed relative to London. It would be a shame if they banned cars in a city that is so well-equipped to handle them.
  - kiliantics 7y ago
    That's how all change begins. And in this case, it's pretty easy for any reasonable person to understand that less cars in cities is better for almost every reason other than a simple selfish desire to be inside a car and take up a car's worth of space and air pollution rather than a human's worth.
  - bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
    Pretty sure cars are the vocal minority imposing their externalities on everyone who doesn’t drive. In New York that’s most people.
electric_muse 7y ago
Walkable cities sounds great until you have luggage to carry or groceries to lug. It’s all about the collective good over that of the individual.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  I don't mean to be one of those "but, well" people, but, well, in my experience it hasn't been. I've not had a car for quite some time and still carry luggage and groceries. The added fitness from walking more has probably helped quite a bit. It is a very common sight to see people in my neighborhood get on a bus with one of those square rolling carts with a week's (or more) worth of groceries. I've considered doing the same thing but between my spouse and I, we can fit everything we want in our two backpacks and two to three reusable handle bags. Lots of how we run society is for the collective good. Strangely, transportation seems to be the opposite. We subsidize the hell out of individual transport while minimizing collective, more efficient transport. What most of us who advocate for public / group transport want is for those to be more even.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  I have had absolutely no problem lugging my luggage to the airport or carrying my groceries on foot or by mixed foot/train/bus. It might require some modifications to your trip (e.g., going more frequently, or purchasing some personal shopping carts to carry stuff around in), but it's not that hard.
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    Depending on area of course, but usually a grocer or supermarket is much closer, meaning that more frequent and smaller trips aren't an issue and mean you often have fresher produce to work with.
- adjkant 7y ago
  As someone who lives in cities and has never owned a car, doing just fine here with walking my groceries back weekly and taking luggage around when I travel thanks very much. Doesn't work for everyone but that's why we have suburbs and plenty of car first/primary cities like Houston or Portland.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Just about anyone who has breathed London air in the last 30 years sees how it is progress. Dirty, smelly and unhealthy that creates a coating on clothes, furniture and windows. That's probably not ideal for lungs. We notice, and hate it every time we visit the relatives down there. "Start breathing crap" kicks in around Hendon.
- mattlondon 7y ago
  It is the heavy diesel vehicles that are the problem - i.e. buses and taxis mainly, but also commercial vans and trucks. A universal diesel ban (including public transport) would go a long way to improving air quality IMO. There are viable electric buses, but apparently the way TfL runs it's contracts means it is not commercially viable for bus companies to use EV buses (due to requiring new vehicles on new contracts, but the contracts not being long enough to recoup the costs of EV buses Vs cheaper diesel) Unfortunately the black cab unions have TfL by the balls so they'll never ban them (just like how black cabs are somehow exempt from ULEZ) Yes EV vehicles still create brake and tyre particles, but EVs use brake pads less, and I'd rather have just the brake pad and tyre particles to deal with, rahlther than brake, tyre AND diesel particulates.
  - Reason077 7y ago
    New diesel cabs can no longer be licensed in London. All new licensed taxis must be zero-emissions capable, ie: electric. As London taxi licenses expire after 15 years, the last diesel cabs will be gone by the end of 2032. But given how many electrics there already are, in practice the vast majority will be electric long before then. I agree that more needs to be done about buses. We are starting to see some electric buses, but they're not being rolled out fast enough. TfL needs to stop buying new diesel buses immediately.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Well if BoJo had thought a little more on the new Routemaster. Contracts may be from Westminster - as that sounds just like the idiocy of UK railways that had a very similar issue. Exempting cabs from the ULEZ is bizarre and unforgivable. It could have been a perfect push to electric.
jcranmer 7y ago
Manhattan is a dense enough place that transportation is focused on moving people, and it just so happens that single-occupant vehicles is the least space-efficient way to move people. It's not anti-car, it's just a recognition that single-occupant vehicles ought to be at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of contesting for the scarce space allocated for transportation.
megaremote 7y ago
40,000 people are killed every single year in the USA due to cars. Over 2 million are injured or disabled. And that is direct deaths, not including deaths from pollution. That is the tip of the iceberg for problems with cars. And yet, you can't see why cars are a problem? I don't believe you.
- refurb 7y ago
  Millions are killed by medical mistakes. Does that mean we should do away with doctors? You can’t count the negative and ignore all the positives.
  - lkbm 7y ago
    We don't have a effective alternative to doctors. We do for cars, at least in dense urban settings.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    We invest pretty heavily in reducing medical mistakes. Why shouldn't we try to do the same with cars?
smileysteve 7y ago
In the U.S. at least; we've seen the greatest number of pedestrian deaths since 1990 and > Traffic deaths are now the leading cause of death globally for those between the ages of 5 and 29. > Pedestrian deaths are up 51.5 percent since hitting a low of 4,109 in 2009, according to GHSA. They now make up 16 percent of all road deaths, up from 12 percent in 2009. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/02/28/pedestrian-safety-crisis-deaths-ghsa/2993321002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/02/28/pedestr... https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffi...

snovv_crash 7y ago

In the city, space is a limited resource. Hogging limited resources is generally considered rude, whether you're liberal or conservative, urban or rural. The difference is just what people consider a limited resource.

omosubi 7y ago

Because cars have a lot of externalities that negatively affect cities? Pollution, noise, increase in collisions, space required to house and fuel them to name a few. I, and many other people, prefer areas of cities where cars aren't dominant and would like to see more of it

electric_muse 7y ago
But I’m not sure this is a widely held preference. Seems to be a vocal minority trying to impose their will on others.
- omosubi 7y ago
  That may be true but it's largely how our political system works. Regardless, you can try to fight back or just move to someplace that has the density and mobility you want.
- audunw 7y ago
  Any data on that? Here around Oslo, there is quite a bit of opposition to banning cars from the city - but mostly from people living outside of it. People who live in the city, and who should have the most say, seems to like it. The green party grew in the recent election. Data has shown that businesses are doing well. Some do better, some the same, some worse (like furniture stores, which is a silly thing to have in a city centre anyway). There's certainly a growing preference for car-free cities. Seems to me like younger people prefer it. Not just because they don't have cars.. I do now, but I really don't like to use it in the city. My wife and I take it to the closest metro station with free parking, and take the metro the rest of the way. Much less stressful. Seems to me like it is mostly old people who are opposed to banning cars. When they were young, the cities were not as dense, cars not as prevalent, and people didn't care as much about air pollution. They could drive straight into the city centre and park wherever. They don't want to give up on that, even if it means being stuck in traffic and driving around the city centre for half an hour to find a free parking spot. It's an inconvenience they've gotten used to. But the inconveniences of public transportation? Unbearable!
  - rubyboss 7y ago
    Last time I was in Oslo it looked like the network of motorways in the city were well developed relative to London. It would be a shame if they banned cars in a city that is so well-equipped to handle them.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  That's how all change begins. And in this case, it's pretty easy for any reasonable person to understand that less cars in cities is better for almost every reason other than a simple selfish desire to be inside a car and take up a car's worth of space and air pollution rather than a human's worth.
- bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
  Pretty sure cars are the vocal minority imposing their externalities on everyone who doesn’t drive. In New York that’s most people.

electric_muse 7y ago

Walkable cities sounds great until you have luggage to carry or groceries to lug. It’s all about the collective good over that of the individual.

techsupporter 7y ago
I don't mean to be one of those "but, well" people, but, well, in my experience it hasn't been. I've not had a car for quite some time and still carry luggage and groceries. The added fitness from walking more has probably helped quite a bit. It is a very common sight to see people in my neighborhood get on a bus with one of those square rolling carts with a week's (or more) worth of groceries. I've considered doing the same thing but between my spouse and I, we can fit everything we want in our two backpacks and two to three reusable handle bags. Lots of how we run society is for the collective good. Strangely, transportation seems to be the opposite. We subsidize the hell out of individual transport while minimizing collective, more efficient transport. What most of us who advocate for public / group transport want is for those to be more even.
jcranmer 7y ago
I have had absolutely no problem lugging my luggage to the airport or carrying my groceries on foot or by mixed foot/train/bus. It might require some modifications to your trip (e.g., going more frequently, or purchasing some personal shopping carts to carry stuff around in), but it's not that hard.
- jimktrains2 7y ago
  Depending on area of course, but usually a grocer or supermarket is much closer, meaning that more frequent and smaller trips aren't an issue and mean you often have fresher produce to work with.
adjkant 7y ago
As someone who lives in cities and has never owned a car, doing just fine here with walking my groceries back weekly and taking luggage around when I travel thanks very much. Doesn't work for everyone but that's why we have suburbs and plenty of car first/primary cities like Houston or Portland.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Just about anyone who has breathed London air in the last 30 years sees how it is progress. Dirty, smelly and unhealthy that creates a coating on clothes, furniture and windows. That's probably not ideal for lungs. We notice, and hate it every time we visit the relatives down there. "Start breathing crap" kicks in around Hendon.

mattlondon 7y ago
It is the heavy diesel vehicles that are the problem - i.e. buses and taxis mainly, but also commercial vans and trucks. A universal diesel ban (including public transport) would go a long way to improving air quality IMO. There are viable electric buses, but apparently the way TfL runs it's contracts means it is not commercially viable for bus companies to use EV buses (due to requiring new vehicles on new contracts, but the contracts not being long enough to recoup the costs of EV buses Vs cheaper diesel) Unfortunately the black cab unions have TfL by the balls so they'll never ban them (just like how black cabs are somehow exempt from ULEZ) Yes EV vehicles still create brake and tyre particles, but EVs use brake pads less, and I'd rather have just the brake pad and tyre particles to deal with, rahlther than brake, tyre AND diesel particulates.
- Reason077 7y ago
  New diesel cabs can no longer be licensed in London. All new licensed taxis must be zero-emissions capable, ie: electric. As London taxi licenses expire after 15 years, the last diesel cabs will be gone by the end of 2032. But given how many electrics there already are, in practice the vast majority will be electric long before then. I agree that more needs to be done about buses. We are starting to see some electric buses, but they're not being rolled out fast enough. TfL needs to stop buying new diesel buses immediately.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Well if BoJo had thought a little more on the new Routemaster. Contracts may be from Westminster - as that sounds just like the idiocy of UK railways that had a very similar issue. Exempting cabs from the ULEZ is bizarre and unforgivable. It could have been a perfect push to electric.

jcranmer 7y ago

Manhattan is a dense enough place that transportation is focused on moving people, and it just so happens that single-occupant vehicles is the least space-efficient way to move people. It's not anti-car, it's just a recognition that single-occupant vehicles ought to be at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of contesting for the scarce space allocated for transportation.

megaremote 7y ago

40,000 people are killed every single year in the USA due to cars. Over 2 million are injured or disabled. And that is direct deaths, not including deaths from pollution. That is the tip of the iceberg for problems with cars. And yet, you can't see why cars are a problem? I don't believe you.

refurb 7y ago
Millions are killed by medical mistakes. Does that mean we should do away with doctors? You can’t count the negative and ignore all the positives.
- lkbm 7y ago
  We don't have a effective alternative to doctors. We do for cars, at least in dense urban settings.
- adrianN 7y ago
  We invest pretty heavily in reducing medical mistakes. Why shouldn't we try to do the same with cars?

smileysteve 7y ago

In the U.S. at least; we've seen the greatest number of pedestrian deaths since 1990 and > Traffic deaths are now the leading cause of death globally for those between the ages of 5 and 29. > Pedestrian deaths are up 51.5 percent since hitting a low of 4,109 in 2009, according to GHSA. They now make up 16 percent of all road deaths, up from 12 percent in 2009. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/02/28/pedestrian-safety-crisis-deaths-ghsa/2993321002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/02/28/pedestr... https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffi...