3 ms·

Some cities simply can't do this, such as Los Angeles, Dallas, and Atlanta. It's not in their DNA. Things are simply too far apart and the infrastructure couldn

Some cities simply can't do this, such as Los Angeles, Dallas, and Atlanta. It's not in their DNA. Things are simply too far apart and the infrastructure couldn't hold it. Other cities are moving toward "no cars" by simply allowing gridlock to make driving a car worthless. I visit NYC very often, and we used to take cabs all the time. Now, we never do, unless we have so much luggage we can't manage - it's a nightmare getting a cab through Manhattan. They might as well close most of Broadway, it's just a quagmire.

noobermin 7y ago
One thing I'll add, the "allowing gridlock" is like "allowing water to fill a container". It more or less is what an incompressible fluid does which is essentially what traffic is. That's why road widenings don't neccessarily decrease congestion, when you take into the non-linear effects (induced demand).
- the8472 7y ago
  > which is essentially what traffic is No, not at all. Traffic is quite compressible, it just slows down when you do that. Which is the issue here.
- Nullabillity 7y ago
  > induced demand Oh no, more people can get to their destination by their preferred mode of transportation! How horrible!
jamestimmins 7y ago
There's an important difference between having car-free areas and being entirely car free. The Santa Monica Promenade is actually a good example of this in practice. For several blocks near the beach it's pedestrian-only, and this has made it a destination for shopping and general hanging out. I used to work right near there and it was extremely nice to have somewhere to stroll and people watch without worrying about cars.