5 ms·

I am biased but why do we even need cars in the city center, or at the very least why should they be convenient? Could there not be a situation where you walk t

I am biased but why do we even need cars in the city center, or at the very least why should they be convenient? Could there not be a situation where you walk to the edges of the city center to pick up your car and leave from there? There are specific accessibility concerns that certainly need to be accounted for, but the idea that the average driver loses 20 minutes on a trip that should be 5-10 minutes doesn't seem like inherently an issue in this context. edit-add: biased in the sense that I really dislike cars and live in NYC in large part because you do not need one here

tw04 5y ago
I was waiting for this response. As someone who doesn’t live in the city center, and has no easy means of mass transportation to get there, my response is: fine I just won’t go then. You lose my money. In NYC or Chicago that’s probably not a big deal. In the vast majority of the rest of the US, that’s how you kill a city center. I can tell you in my case, given the homelessness issue that’s been getting worse the last decade, if you make it harder to get to the downtown area it will become a ghost town.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  You could replace cars with public transport rather than just moving the cars. If you don't want to build too much infrastructure then buses and bus lanes work well.
  - alacombe 5y ago
    Very convenient to haul 60lb of stuff in public transport...
- lg 5y ago
  One thing to remember about NYC's crazy tolls and congestion pricing plans is that there are not many reasons why visitors should need to drive in. There's NJTransit, PATH, light rail to Hudson valley and CT, LIRR, Amtrak, so many regional bus routes and frequent shuttles to EWR and other popular places, where most of these have park-and-ride options. And then of course once in the city there are subway and buses. Other cities that want to copy the car-discouraging policies should think about what the alternatives are.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    It was cheaper and faster for me to drive 25 miles into Manhattan than take the train in from a walkable station. Then getting back out doesn't have to be at the mercy of the train schedule which is often every two hours for the line in question.
- morsch 5y ago
  Park + ride at the outer edges of the city center. But most American cities are probably a lost cause.
- dsomers 5y ago
  Lol, have you been to the Midwest? In small and medium sized cites there downtowns are often dead, including the small city I grew up in. All of them easily accessible by car. Dead city centres in North America more have to do with the post war experiment of subsidizing inefficient sprawling car dependent suburbs. If you want to actually understand this read more from the advocacy group Strong Towns[0] they also have a great YouTube channel. Now compare small Midwest cities to small cities in the Netherlands like Leiden or Haarlem and you’ll see limiting traffic from downtowns has little to do with how well they do economically. [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/
  - api 5y ago
    That’s not as true as it used to be, but I don’t disagree with the wider point.
    - dsomers 5y ago
      I agree it’s improving from the 90s, but when I go back to the Midwest from Western Europe, the difference is dramatic simply in the number of people downtown in public spaces for cites with the same population.
      - api 5y ago
        That’s an extreme comparison! I bet only a few US cities would approach what you see in Berlin or Paris.
        dsomers 5y ago
        I’m not talking about Berlin or Paris. I’m taking about small European cities I’m familiar with that have vibrant walkable downtowns. Off the top of my head, Leiden Netherlands, Haarlem Netherlands, Peacara Italy, or Zug Switzerland.
  - frosted-flakes 5y ago
    If you ban cars they will be even more dead.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > that’s how you kill a city center. This is a function of American cities being poorly designed. You are expected to arrive by car from the sprawling suburbs. I agree with your exceptions, NYC, Chicago: but I'd add, almost every city in Europe, such as the grandparent was talking about. If this poor design is killed, hopefully something better can arise.
- pharmakom 5y ago
  Honestly, your money is not worth the congestion, noise and air pollution it requires. It’s a real shame your locality does not provide good rail connections.
- disantlor 5y ago
  homelessness is a big issue in NYC, it doesn’t seem clear to me that cars have much to do with it, compared to, say, lack of affordable housing. perhaps we could reclaim all the parking space to build more housing
- mschuetz 5y ago
  > As someone who doesn’t live in the city center, and has no easy means of mass transportation to get there, my response is: fine I just won’t go then. You lose my money. The bussiest city centers tend to be the least car and most pedestrian friendly ones. Park the car at the border of the center, then walk into the center.
  - jakubp 5y ago
    When you say "then walk into the center", you do realize you are talking about a (edit) 20-30 minute walk one-way. A car could cut that in 2 minutes. In my lifetime I was a driver in a city where it took exactly 5 minutes door-to-door from my home to ANY location in the city (at night). During the day it was maybe 8 minutes. Then some years went by. I now live in a city where at night it's 20 minutes, and during the day it's 45-60 minutes. From 5/8 minutes to 20/45-60 minutes. It's the same city. Things change, I get it. It just feels like things are getting worse and worse and yeah, it elicits serious questions like "is this going to be my last car, ever?" etc. :)
    - aliasEli 5y ago
      Don't you ever use public transportation? Most larger European cities have quite acceptable transportation. Also one of the reasons it takes longer is probably that there far more cars on the road and everybody is using their car even for short trips.
- b3morales 5y ago
  > In the vast majority of the rest of the US The cities in these places don't generally have the problems that the GP was talking about: the streets are mostly planned and overall car-friendly, and if you miss one turn there's likely a close opportunity to correct your route.
- dionidium 5y ago
  This is what mid-sized American cities have been saying for about 75 years, most of which adopted this plan with zeal. And it's been a total failure. It turns out you can't save Downtown by making it easier for suburbanites to get there. Whatever you think of that approach from first principles, the evidence at this point is overwhelming. It does not work.
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    Moreover, suburbanites largely don't want to visit the city, they either do by necessity or for special occasions like a big game or a designated social event. I see this in Seattle so much. People complain about their version of what they think my city is, swarm in for a big football game or whatever and have a great time once every few months, then swarm out to complain more about a city they’re not even in
jakubp 5y ago
In my town you have largely 4 options: - walk - drive - take a bus/tram - bike Walking is too slow and cumbersome for most people (e.g. 6-8 km one way to work seems like too much to do every day), and impossible if you want to go shopping anywhere except on your way to work. Public transport is really slow and not as flexible as you want (many places without good connections, wait times 15-20 minutes, transit times 20-50 minutes). So you are left really with bike (flexible, constant travel time regardless of traffic, keeps you fit -- but very susceptible to bad weather) and car (flexible, fast, great for transporting items -- but very susceptible to traffic).
- wongarsu 5y ago
  Biking is not that susceptible to weather imho. When it rains you can wear a rain coat and rain trousers. When it's cold you can wear any outdoor jacket (gore tex is great even if maybe not healthy). When it snows you have to work a bit harder. When there is ice you can use tires with spikes for great grip. The worst is hot weather, since you can only shed so much clothing. An ebike helps here, but that reduces the health benefits.
  - pharmakom 5y ago
    Cycling in the rain is only a huge problem when the infrastructure is crap. Riding in a flooded gutter, getting splashed by passing motorists and being left-hooked by people who can’t see clearly through a wet windshield is dangerous and unpleasant. Cycling on a dedicated bike path with good drainage, mud guards and a waterproof is fine, imo.
  - GhostVII 5y ago
    Sure if you are super motivated you can bike in any weather. But for 95% of people they will only be willing to bike if it is nice out. The average person is not going to go out and buy a fat bike or spiked tires for the winter. And they probably shouldn't, biking in winter is dangerous if you don't know what you are doing. And sure I could wear a full rain suite and bike in the rain, but that is far less convenient than just driving and wearing a light jacket. So sure it is possible to bike in all weather, in the same way that it is possible to walk 5k, just no one wants to.
navbaker 5y ago
Anytime I want to spend time in DC, I definitely just drive to Greenbelt, park, and take the metro to whatever part of the city I’m trying to go to. It’s a sanity-saver over trying to find parking.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tw04 5y ago

I was waiting for this response. As someone who doesn’t live in the city center, and has no easy means of mass transportation to get there, my response is: fine I just won’t go then. You lose my money. In NYC or Chicago that’s probably not a big deal. In the vast majority of the rest of the US, that’s how you kill a city center. I can tell you in my case, given the homelessness issue that’s been getting worse the last decade, if you make it harder to get to the downtown area it will become a ghost town.

nicoburns 5y ago
You could replace cars with public transport rather than just moving the cars. If you don't want to build too much infrastructure then buses and bus lanes work well.
- alacombe 5y ago
  Very convenient to haul 60lb of stuff in public transport...
lg 5y ago
One thing to remember about NYC's crazy tolls and congestion pricing plans is that there are not many reasons why visitors should need to drive in. There's NJTransit, PATH, light rail to Hudson valley and CT, LIRR, Amtrak, so many regional bus routes and frequent shuttles to EWR and other popular places, where most of these have park-and-ride options. And then of course once in the city there are subway and buses. Other cities that want to copy the car-discouraging policies should think about what the alternatives are.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  It was cheaper and faster for me to drive 25 miles into Manhattan than take the train in from a walkable station. Then getting back out doesn't have to be at the mercy of the train schedule which is often every two hours for the line in question.
morsch 5y ago
Park + ride at the outer edges of the city center. But most American cities are probably a lost cause.
dsomers 5y ago
Lol, have you been to the Midwest? In small and medium sized cites there downtowns are often dead, including the small city I grew up in. All of them easily accessible by car. Dead city centres in North America more have to do with the post war experiment of subsidizing inefficient sprawling car dependent suburbs. If you want to actually understand this read more from the advocacy group Strong Towns[0] they also have a great YouTube channel. Now compare small Midwest cities to small cities in the Netherlands like Leiden or Haarlem and you’ll see limiting traffic from downtowns has little to do with how well they do economically. [0] https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/
- api 5y ago
  That’s not as true as it used to be, but I don’t disagree with the wider point.
  - dsomers 5y ago
    I agree it’s improving from the 90s, but when I go back to the Midwest from Western Europe, the difference is dramatic simply in the number of people downtown in public spaces for cites with the same population.
    - api 5y ago
      That’s an extreme comparison! I bet only a few US cities would approach what you see in Berlin or Paris.
      - dsomers 5y ago
        I’m not talking about Berlin or Paris. I’m taking about small European cities I’m familiar with that have vibrant walkable downtowns. Off the top of my head, Leiden Netherlands, Haarlem Netherlands, Peacara Italy, or Zug Switzerland.
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  If you ban cars they will be even more dead.
teachingassist 5y ago
> that’s how you kill a city center. This is a function of American cities being poorly designed. You are expected to arrive by car from the sprawling suburbs. I agree with your exceptions, NYC, Chicago: but I'd add, almost every city in Europe, such as the grandparent was talking about. If this poor design is killed, hopefully something better can arise.
pharmakom 5y ago
Honestly, your money is not worth the congestion, noise and air pollution it requires. It’s a real shame your locality does not provide good rail connections.
disantlor 5y ago
homelessness is a big issue in NYC, it doesn’t seem clear to me that cars have much to do with it, compared to, say, lack of affordable housing. perhaps we could reclaim all the parking space to build more housing
mschuetz 5y ago
> As someone who doesn’t live in the city center, and has no easy means of mass transportation to get there, my response is: fine I just won’t go then. You lose my money. The bussiest city centers tend to be the least car and most pedestrian friendly ones. Park the car at the border of the center, then walk into the center.
- jakubp 5y ago
  When you say "then walk into the center", you do realize you are talking about a (edit) 20-30 minute walk one-way. A car could cut that in 2 minutes. In my lifetime I was a driver in a city where it took exactly 5 minutes door-to-door from my home to ANY location in the city (at night). During the day it was maybe 8 minutes. Then some years went by. I now live in a city where at night it's 20 minutes, and during the day it's 45-60 minutes. From 5/8 minutes to 20/45-60 minutes. It's the same city. Things change, I get it. It just feels like things are getting worse and worse and yeah, it elicits serious questions like "is this going to be my last car, ever?" etc. :)
  - aliasEli 5y ago
    Don't you ever use public transportation? Most larger European cities have quite acceptable transportation. Also one of the reasons it takes longer is probably that there far more cars on the road and everybody is using their car even for short trips.
b3morales 5y ago
> In the vast majority of the rest of the US The cities in these places don't generally have the problems that the GP was talking about: the streets are mostly planned and overall car-friendly, and if you miss one turn there's likely a close opportunity to correct your route.
dionidium 5y ago
This is what mid-sized American cities have been saying for about 75 years, most of which adopted this plan with zeal. And it's been a total failure. It turns out you can't save Downtown by making it easier for suburbanites to get there. Whatever you think of that approach from first principles, the evidence at this point is overwhelming. It does not work.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  Moreover, suburbanites largely don't want to visit the city, they either do by necessity or for special occasions like a big game or a designated social event. I see this in Seattle so much. People complain about their version of what they think my city is, swarm in for a big football game or whatever and have a great time once every few months, then swarm out to complain more about a city they’re not even in

jakubp 5y ago

In my town you have largely 4 options: - walk - drive - take a bus/tram - bike Walking is too slow and cumbersome for most people (e.g. 6-8 km one way to work seems like too much to do every day), and impossible if you want to go shopping anywhere except on your way to work. Public transport is really slow and not as flexible as you want (many places without good connections, wait times 15-20 minutes, transit times 20-50 minutes). So you are left really with bike (flexible, constant travel time regardless of traffic, keeps you fit -- but very susceptible to bad weather) and car (flexible, fast, great for transporting items -- but very susceptible to traffic).

wongarsu 5y ago
Biking is not that susceptible to weather imho. When it rains you can wear a rain coat and rain trousers. When it's cold you can wear any outdoor jacket (gore tex is great even if maybe not healthy). When it snows you have to work a bit harder. When there is ice you can use tires with spikes for great grip. The worst is hot weather, since you can only shed so much clothing. An ebike helps here, but that reduces the health benefits.
- pharmakom 5y ago
  Cycling in the rain is only a huge problem when the infrastructure is crap. Riding in a flooded gutter, getting splashed by passing motorists and being left-hooked by people who can’t see clearly through a wet windshield is dangerous and unpleasant. Cycling on a dedicated bike path with good drainage, mud guards and a waterproof is fine, imo.
- GhostVII 5y ago
  Sure if you are super motivated you can bike in any weather. But for 95% of people they will only be willing to bike if it is nice out. The average person is not going to go out and buy a fat bike or spiked tires for the winter. And they probably shouldn't, biking in winter is dangerous if you don't know what you are doing. And sure I could wear a full rain suite and bike in the rain, but that is far less convenient than just driving and wearing a light jacket. So sure it is possible to bike in all weather, in the same way that it is possible to walk 5k, just no one wants to.

navbaker 5y ago

Anytime I want to spend time in DC, I definitely just drive to Greenbelt, park, and take the metro to whatever part of the city I’m trying to go to. It’s a sanity-saver over trying to find parking.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]