9 ms·
Ban private cars from all inner cities, at least in Europe where there's acceptable public transport and alternatives. We need to reclaim our cities and revert
by neuronic 7y ago
Ban private cars from all inner cities, at least in Europe where there's acceptable public transport and alternatives.
We need to reclaim our cities and revert the damage done by big auto. GM and others have screwed American city inhabitants for decades by actively destroying public transport projects through lobbyism and blackmail.
- eebynight 7y agoHow do people come up with this crap?
- acheron9383 7y agoI get what you're going for, American cities are very car centric. But do you have any sources for those strong claims like GM blackmailing people?
- bryanlarsen 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- saurik 7y agoSo, this is an extremely well-known claim for which you can find numerous reasonable-looking citations if you actually cared to spend the couple seconds to ask Google, but FWIW there is a lot of argument as to whether it is really true in such simple terms, despite so many sources and citations. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal/5771/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/be-careful-ho...
- chrisseaton 7y ago> So, this is an extremely well-known claim for which you can find numerous reasonable-looking citations I didn't see any mention of blackmail in that article? Which bit were you referring to?
- moron4hire 7y agoI think, more importantly, is why does it matter? We have the infrastructure we have now. Maybe GM should be held accountable for what they did, but what does that have to do with access to cities for people with cars today? I see a lot of vitriol towards drivers in this thread, and any other time this topic comes up. We didn't make the world the way it is. It ultimately feels like classism. I'm glad these folks are able to take advantage of the privilege of living in a dynamic, multicultural city. But not everyone can afford that.
- neuronic 7y agoI am OP and quite the driver myself. However, I never drive in the inner city (~ 5km radius from city hall) in my town because: a) it's annoying due to overloaded traffic b) it's annoying due to parking c) my job provides me with year-long public transport ticket and taking a car and paying for all certain and possible costs is economically disadvantageous d) public transport is amazing, taxis work and ride sharing and car sharing exist on top of it for cases when public transport shuts down (during major incidents usually, e.g. finding yet another WW2 bomb at some construction site) Just cut it down to business/public traffic and reinvigorate inner city life with more sensible things. It actually already happens from now and then for festivities and other events and people start using ALL of the space that cars uselessly take up.
- the_gastropod 7y agoI think it matters because people often think we "naturally" progressed to today's city arrangements because they're better than the alternatives. And this GM example highlights that it's not necessarily the case. > I see a lot of vitriol towards drivers in this thread, and any other time this topic comes up. Understand that it is a frustrating topic. Cars are one of the top killers in the U.S. both directly and indirectly. They make our places of living less safe and less pleasant. It's especially frustrating when people who live in the suburbs commute in to where we live, then complain about how unpleasant city living is—in large part because they're making it unpleasant. > It ultimately feels like classism. I'm glad these folks are able to take advantage of the privilege of living in a dynamic, multicultural city. But not everyone can afford that. And this is another piece of frustration. Yes, given current government incentives, it can be more affordable to live in the suburbs than in cities. But this is artificial. Urban dwellers ultimately subsidize those living in suburban/rural areas, thanks to government policy carried over from the cold war era. It's so bizarre that we live in a time/place where driving a personal automobile to work is seen as "lower class" than riding bicycles or taking the bus/train to work. Something's broken.
- jcranmer 7y agoIt's a reference to the GM streetcar conspiracy (most notably retold in Who Framed Roger Rabbit). While it's a decently well-known anecdote, most experts nowadays believe that the very real attempt to monopolize the selling of buses to city transit did not contribute in any significant way to the dismantling of the streetcars--the streetcars were already in rude health and dying, and their rapid dismantling happened even in cities where the bus transit companies were not involved.
- HoustonRefugee 7y agoGM is already laying the groundwork for the next bailout with their plans to stop building cars, they just don't realize it yet. As for the plan to ban cars from city centers, I am all for that. I want to see mass amounts of money invested in public transit.
- selimthegrim 7y agoRude health means good health, not poor.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> the streetcars were already in rude health and dying You can't be both in rude health and dying at the same time! They mean the opposite thing!
- ghaff 7y agoRude health isn’t really a common term. I interpreted it as poor health which seems rather obvious from the context. It does appear to actually mean good health but it’s pretty obscure.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- leesalminen 7y agoI love my cars. I have 6. And I hate cities.
- ahoy 7y agogreat, dont come to them!
- leesalminen 7y agoLike anyone goes to San Francisco by choice anymore. Gross.
- untog 7y agoWhat do you hope to gain by posting such obviously false posts?
- leesalminen 7y agoWhat’s obviously false?
- untog 7y agoPlenty of people go to SF by choice. Very obviously that's the case. Why try to assert otherwise? Just mindless trolling?
- addicted 7y ago“No one goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”
- leesalminen 7y agoPeople are only there for work. Most will leave in 3-5 years.
- 7y ago
- BurningFrog 7y ago> Ban private cars from all inner cities, at least in Europe where there's acceptable public transport and alternatives. A more constructive/less destructive model would be for SF to actually built decent public transport and get cars off the street by offering better alternatives. Of course, SF long ago lost its ability to build things. So only banning remains in the toolbox.
- peteey 7y agoWe can restrict cars and build public transit. Cars are the #1 killer of Americans under the age of 25. It only falls to #2 at the next age range because of overdose deaths. Cars are deadly and inefficient. Electric cars are still cars.
- mdorazio 7y agoExcept that most vehicular deaths don't occur in cities [1]. Banning cars in metro areas would do basically nothing to change the things you mention. Banning cars where deaths actually happen is a complete non-starter. [1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/10/the-geography-of-car-deaths-in-america/410494/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/10/the-geography...
- erikpukinskis 7y agoI happen to know that 100% of vehicular deaths in San Francisco happen in the city, so your numbers are pretty suspect.
- barrkel 7y agoYou can't mix and match stats like that.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 7y ago
- choeger 7y agoPlease include delivery vehicles into your wish, if you are earnest. Or restrict your wish to through-traffic. Otherwise, you are just calling for a ban of other people traffic. Edit: would the downvoters care to explain why their prime delivery or their coffee beans are necessary traffic while, e.g., a mother driving their kids is not?
- purerandomness 7y agoThe point is to give incentives to people to use public transport, and discurage owning a vehicle that takes up space and resources. Why should the city build public transport, if mothers with children won't use it?
- choeger 7y agoMaybe cities should try to build public transport that mothers with children prefer to their private cars? If cities cannot offer something better, they will never convince. So they must restrict. Then at least they should forbid the better for everyone not just for people their voters do not care about. It is quite revealing that the myriad of small, cheap, and flexible transporters that provide all these services inside cities are nearly always exempt from traffic policies.
- purerandomness 7y agoMothers with children already have an alternative: Use public transport, or use an uber, or a taxi. There's no reason to own a car. It's all about utilization: An uber cab will probably see 10%-90% utilization (passenger count / time in transport), while a privately owned car is utilized only a few minutes of the day, by only 1/5th of the passanger capacity. Most of the time it collects rust on a parking spot that could be utilized for a better purpose. Parks, street food stands, benches. Same for delivery: If the alternative is that everyone oes out and pollutes supermarkets, streets and public transport to get their freshly ground coffee, don't you think that having a vehicle that delivers on the last mile to the customer is much more efficient? In cities that invest into bike lanes, obviously cargo bikes are becoming a real alternative for delivery services. Yes, public transport has to be improved, too, nobody argued otherwise.
- ronnie_fr3 7y agoYeah great, i also suggest, as a French, that you come and enjoy our great public transport and the kind of people in it, especially at night. Oh and also try walking under 35°C dressed as an executive
- selimthegrim 7y agoI don’t follow the latter
- wutbrodo 7y agoI think the idea is that walking around the city dressed in a heavy suit when it's very hot outside is uncomfortable and sweaty. I'd argue that requiring your employees to play an archaic game of dress-up is the real problem, but if I'm being honest, it can be pretty uncomfortable to walk around a sweltering city even in street clothes. (That being said I don't think the tradeoff is worth destroying your city with car-centric design)
- mayneack 7y agoDedicated lanes and car restrictions make buses acceptable public transit pretty cheaply. They can at least serve as a bridge in cities that are borderline ready for restrictions to get the ball moving faster.
- tengbretson 7y ago> Ban private cars from all inner cities > We need to reclaim our cities Cities have a responsibility that extends beyond their own defined borders. Cities act as the cultural, legal, and commercial nexus for the surrounding rural and suburban area – sometimes that can include the entire state. That responsibility includes the ability for outsiders to be able to access it.
- ianleeclark 7y agoBike, bus, or train. The ability for outsiders can exist without cars.
- pkorzeniewski 7y agoThat's ridiculous, I'm from Europe, I like moving around city in a car and I don't mind other cars, but a) there should be only underground parking lots; b) there should be bike lanes everywhere where there are roads; c) parking in illegal spots should be severly punished and d) diesel cars (and petrol when electric cars become mainstream) should be banned from entering city center. I don't understand the mentality that "I don't want cars in MY city so we should ban all cars!" - I don't like some things in my city as well but I understand that it's hard to please all so we should simply aim for moderation.
- rayiner 7y ago> We need to reclaim our cities and revert the damage done by big auto. GM and others have screwed American city inhabitants for decades by actively destroying public transport projects through lobbyism and blackmail. What lobbying are you talking about? The most common story, regarding GM and street cars, has largely been debunked: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal/5771/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/be-careful-ho... > Eventually, argues Slater, the operating costs could not be ignored. Just before World War II the operating costs for buses were 20 percent less per seat than for streetcars. After the war even a trolley-friendly city like San Francisco found buses cost 37 percent less to operate per hour. This wasn't just the case in the land where General Motors was king; in England, too, passenger costs had leveled out or started to favor buses by the 1930s. > A case study can be made of Los Angeles, where Snell focused a good deal of his attack. But contemporary accounts suggest that a transformation from streetcars to buses was underway long before GM and its affiliates entered the scene circa 1940. As early as 1923, the Pacific Electric rail line was buying buses to replace some of its routes. The city's board of public utilities encouraged this trend — calling the use of motor buses "a foregone conclusion" — and by 1930 the city's big bus conglomerate carried 29 million riders a year. More generally, you're overlooking the utter failure of public transport systems in the U.S. What lobbying was responsible for DC's and New York's subway systems literally falling apart, despite ample funding? Is GM lobbying responsible for it costing 5-7x as much to build a mile of subway in New York as compared to London or Paris? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... What killed transit in the U.S. is a combination of cheap gas prices and ample land making car-dependent sprawl economical, and government incompetence making transit uneconomical. Here in Maryland, the State is building a 26 km light rail line through the suburbs for $7 billion. The Swedish city of Uppsala is building 17 km of light rail through their downtown for 340 million Euro. That cost differential is utterly fatal. For transit to be useful it needs to go where people are. If it costs 10 times as much to build a kilometer of rail, you simply can't build enough transit to make it a viable competitor to driving. The cost disease likewise makes it impossible to quickly fix problems that make people not want to ride transit. DC's Metro ridership is declining due to low quality of service. We need a new rail station at Roslyn because that is causing a bottleneck. The estimated cost in 2012 was $1 billion for a new underground station on an existing line. By contrast, Stockholm is planning to extend its underground system by 11 km, including 11 new stations for $3.3 billion. A similar new underground line in DC (which is desperately needed to relieve congestion on the Orange/Blue/Silver tunnel) would be a $20 billion project. At the end of the day, Americans are voting totally rationally, and "lobbying" has nothing to do with it. They see $10 billion projects that provide transit to a handful of people, and quite rationally say "fuck it, let's build more highways." I can guarantee you that if the Uppsala light rail project was going to cost $3.4 billion Euro and take 15+ years to build, like it would here in the U.S., the Swedes wouldn't vote for it either.