10 ms·
People Hate the Idea of Car-Free Cities–Until They Live in One
- Manuel_D 4y ago"car free city" is a bit of an oxymoron. How do ambulances and fire engines access buildings to administer emergency services? How do deliveries to stores work? No city can actually function without automobiles. The reality is that there's sections of the city that are pedestrian only. I lived in Barcelona for two years, and that's how it worked. There are some pedestrian roads that have benches and storefronts, but there's automobile traffic one street over. The article describes the superblock system: basically the interior of the block is pedestrian only, but the larger exterior streets have car traffic. No one is more than a block away from car traffic at any time.
- carapace 4y ago> No city can actually function without automobiles. C'mon, cities predate cars by thousands of years.
- x86x87 4y agoJust because something is possible at a certain scale or used to be done in a specific way does not mean it's a good idead. A city with 1000 people is a conmpletely differeny proposition than a city with 100k people.
- Manuel_D 4y agoRight, and those cities were miniscule by today's standards, and their municipal services were terrible. How many times did London burn down before the 20th century? How effective was medieval London's emergency medical services?
- JCharante 4y ago> those cities were miniscule by today's standards Rome had a million people in it 100 BC. There were still large cities. Also most large cities today (Tokyo, Shanghai, London, Paris, New York) have strong public transport systems and most people don't need cars. So you can have large cities where most people live a car-free lifestyle. > How many times did London burn down before the 20th century? I think fire codes being enforced & developments in building techniques helped reduced fires, not just that we can drive fire trucks to situations.
- pkphilip 4y agoThey had horse carts then. People weren't cycling to get around. A car is simply a horse cart without the cart and occupies about the same amount of space
- Nomentatus 4y agoOn the one hand, by the principle of charity, what was meant was that modern cities can't function without automobiles, not that ancient Sumeria required automobiles. Straw man. On the other hand, by the principle of charity, what's being argued is that modern cities can't dump all automobiles immediately; not the idea that modern technology is too feeble to allow a city design without automobiles to function at all. Straw woman. On the third hand, by the principle of charity, what is being argued is that most automobiles can be dropped from large parts of modern cities with more gain than loss; not that entire metropolitan and suburban areas can drop cars without inconvenience. Straw pronoun of your choice. In other words, none of the arguments here are what they appear to be about superficially. They're really about degree of difficulty - is that underestimated or over-estimated? vs the benefits: more or less than you'd think. To argue that, you need details, which are in short supply until the experiments get not just to your city but to your block. It's in good part an argument about network effects - and we aren't used to taking those into account properly. Where I live, the standard argument as bike lanes/routes were being (expensively!) built downtown was: "Nobody even uses them!" Which was true as long as the bike routes were all less than a couple kilometers long. Now bike traffic is picking up as routes lengthen and multiply; so I rarely if ever hear that argument. Now what I hear is "you still need a car" because few bike routes are very long as yet, rather than objections to bike lanes in the middle of streets (or displacing streets) existing at all. Soon it will be "where I live you still need a car." Finally, when the lanes are built out, which they will be, the argument will be "I just like the convenience of a car." My own view now: "I didn't expect this, but I really like that my neighborhood is quieter; which it is because there's now a pocket park right where an intersection used to be, one block from me. Just that change has made a remarkable difference. Damned nice to sit there in relative silence. Watching bikes hum by from time to time."
- MrDresden 4y agoClearly you did not read the article, as it revolves around the ways many cities have reduced car traffic by offering alternatives. Cars will not be removed, but they should not be the primary transportation mechanism by which we design our cities going forward.
- Manuel_D 4y agoMy point exactly: the term "car free city" is click bait. "Car free cities" are not even remotely car free, I'm glad you agree. Also how do you conclude that I didn't read the article when I refer to Barcelona's super block system, and reference it's mention in the article? Do a better job reading comments.
- JCharante 4y agoWell if that's your standard then "serverless" isn't really "server less" but we still call it that.
- throwbadubadu 4y agoNo not your point.. that point was already made in the article, noone is saying here (and no reasonable person would think?!?) that car-free means 100% car free, you are overly nit picking at a term for unknown reason.
- tshaddox 4y agoI saw a horse at a fancy wedding once too, but it’s still fair to call most cities “horse-free” in this context.
- Manuel_D 4y agoEven in "car-free" cities you'll see cars every other block, at least. It's nowhere near comparable to calling cities "horse-free".
- tinyspacewizard 4y agoHow it works in Amsterdam, for example, is that you can still drive most places, however: 1. The motor vehicle route is extremely indirect, so walking is typically quicker 2. There is no free parking 3. Store loading happens only at certain times 4. There are shortcuts that emergency services can unlock with special keys
- throwthroyaboat 4y agoAs an addendum to 4., I believe emergency service vehicles are also allowed to use the tram tracks.
- Ekaros 4y agoAnd for some reason they are not banning taxis or "ridesharing". Just the poor have to suffer.
- Seanambers 4y agoI don't know where this romanticizing of car free cities & no cars comes from, but it has gotten a hold in the eco / environmentalist camp and is being spread like shit on a farm. It's false advertising. Copenhagen for instance has a very nice climate and is a compact and flat city which lends itself nicely to bicycle transport, not all cities are equal by a long shot.
- barbazoo 4y agoMany are though, so we probably shouldn't dismiss a solution only because it doesn't apply to a subset of cities.
- vagrantJin 4y agoI don't think anyone has ever said they are against cars outright, just hinting at transport being a utility and personal cars being more of a luxury in cases where better public transport would suffice.
- the_only_law 4y ago> I don't know where this romanticizing of car free cities & no cars comes from You can’t possible imagine any of the things they often loudly shout about?
- germinalphrase 4y agoFewer cars on the road is better for drivers too. You’re not just stuck in traffic; you are traffic.
- treis 4y agoThis is a weird article where they mention a bunch of objections and say nothing about whether or not they're correct.
- sn0w_crash 4y agoI never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles? We are happy for them, why do we need to join them? I personally do not feel safe on a bike in a crowded city. Even if you took cars out of the equation. I also do not want to arrive to work/meetings sweaty and in need of a towel. It’s also very cold where I live. My car is warm. There are numerous reasons I’m not interested in riding a bike. Yet I can’t go more than a day without someone from the bicycle church trying to give me a pamphlet.
- photonbeam 4y agoCar free cities should have bicycles as a nice-to-have, walking and transit should be primary
- pzone 4y agoThe bicycle crowd feels unsafe too. The physical risks of cycling are almost entirely due to cars. Even in icy, slippery conditions, a bicycle accident poses almost no risk of dismemberment or death, except when there are cars involved. For millions of people, cycling is a cheap, convenient, healthy and fun way to get around. This is particularly true since e-bikes became widely available. There is no way to get these riders back into cars. But almost nowhere in the US is there enough biking infrastructure to make them truly safe and separated from car traffic. This lack of infrastructure is why they can come off as a nuisance to drivers and pedestrians. I'm sorry you feel pressured by cycling advocates to change your lifestyle. Maybe that is not the best way for them to advocate for change.
- u801e 4y ago> The bicycle crowd feels unsafe too. Except their feelings don't correlate with actual safety. Statistically, same direction rear end collisions are the least common type of collision while collisions at intersections are the most common. The bicycle infrastructure solutions the bicycle crowd comes up with increase the risk of collisions at intersections. Specifically, right hooks (where a right turning motorist turns across the path of a cyclist going straight through the intersection), left crosses (where a left turning motorist crosses the path of a cyclist going straight through the intersection), and drive outs (where a motorist entering the road from a side street crosses the path of a cyclist). The one way to reduce the risk of intersection collisions is to ride in the center of the general purpose lane, but certain members of the bicycle crowd don't feel safe doing that. But feeling safe doesn't correlate with actual safety from a statistical point of view.
- barrystaes 4y agoIf you are from the US and wonder whats up with the bike hippies: All cities you know are car-centric infrastructure, and i'd have a hard time seeing the problem also. Just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_SXXTBypIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_SXXTBypIg Im dutch and despite being able to ride over in 5 minutes and park my beautiful car right behind the stores, i still prefer to use my bike for daily groceries to get there faster and easier. The cities are designed for this. A bike never has to cross a 4-lane road with homes nearby.
- leviathant 4y agoPhiladelphia reporting in: The core of my city was designed in the 17th century for horses, and grew short on money before that could be completely undone. As someone who used to put 20,000 miles on my car annually, living in the part of Philly where I do, I might drive twice a month. That said, visiting Amsterdam was still quite the revelation. Having lived and worked in Philadelphia for over a decade, visiting other American cities often isn't as exciting as it used to be for me, and I pick up on patterns that used to be normal for me, like how everything is a fifteen minute drive to anything else. I do still feel an odd appeal to American suburbia sometimes, but I don't think I'd go back to that kind of living if I didn't have to.
- Proven 4y ago[dead]
- 2devnull 4y agoI suspect people who like to live in cities prefer them to be car free. I equally suspect people who don’t like cities do not live in cities. I suspect therefore that this headline is misleading.
- mushbino 4y agoMost people in the US aren't used to car-free cities unless they've traveled abroad. It's not something you realize until you experience it first hand.
- minerva23 4y agoOne of the major objections is the lack of space in cities. Some people want physical space (>2000 sq-ft). Some want personal space (the ability to have a quiet private alone space). Both are difficult/costly to get in cities and it has nothing to do with cars.
- alamortsubite 4y ago> One of the major objections is the lack of space in cities. Some people want physical space (>2000 sq-ft). Some want personal space (the ability to have a quiet private alone space). Both are difficult/costly to get in cities and it has nothing to do with cars. I figure I misunderstand your comment, since it sounds so off-the-wall, but according to this article (referenced by OP): https://www.vox.com/a/new-economy-future/cars-cities-technologies https://www.vox.com/a/new-economy-future/cars-cities-technol... , 50-60% of many cities' real estate is devoted to automobiles. So "nothing to do with cars" seems more accurately written as "almost entirely to do with cars." The same is true for having a quiet alone space, based on my experience. Cars are the problem.
- pzone 4y agoThe best way to achieve more space in a walkable urban area is to densify. Today Manhattan has fewer residents than it did a century ago, but more and larger buildings. This is partly because people are living and working in more spacious accommodations.
- squaredot 4y agoI hope that in the future, with autonomous public transportation service more like cabs, we can lessen the impact of cars in cities. Currently I can imagine that it is not always easy to solve the problem with one solution, as people tend to change jobs more often than they change homes, and sometimes connections by public transportation are very inconvenient.
- watwut 4y agoBuilding convenient public transport is doable. It does not requires new technology either.
- techhazard 4y agoExactly, self-driving cars do not solve the car problem; Good public transportation does.
- squaredot 4y agoWhere I live we have a very capillary public transport. The time to get to it and to get from it to the specific place where you have to go, is often the biggest time consuming part of the travel, and that is far from ideal
- andrewmcwatters 4y agoI’ve traveled to “car-free” world cities. I’ve traveled to “car-free” small towns. Having cars is just better. It’s just a preference. It’s super weird to me that this idea is catching on so fast. Do you know what day-to-day life is like in those areas? It’s expensive. Probably because you can’t travel to competition. And you’re absolutely renting anywhere “car-free.” For a generation being screwed over by housing, some people sure are asking for it.
- goosedragons 4y agoHow much money you really saving traveling 10 extra miles to save $5 on groceries in your $30,000 car that costs $2000 a year to insure and $60 a week to fill up?
- andrewmcwatters 4y agoIn my experience, your numbers are dramatically off. You haven’t factored in time at all, either.
- goosedragons 4y agoWhat's dramatically off? Average new car price in the US is $45,000+, average insurance is $1500 a year and will vary by state,location,car,gender,age, etc. Average US commute is 41 miles a day, so I GUESS $60 of gas at $3/gallon is more like 2 two weeks in a modern popular vehicle like a Ford F-150. But yeah, dramatically off. Totally. Its not more of a time savings to drive in a car dependent city. It's certainly not a time savings to check out the competition that's spread out 5 miles apart. I live in a walkable area. Have 3 grocery stores in a 10 minute walk, several bookstores, clothing stores etc. Plenty of competition and I don't have to spend most of the transit time traversing giant parking lots.
- andrewmcwatters 4y agoI didn’t pay anywhere close to that for any of my vehicles. Do you rent? Anyway, doesn’t change that it’s dramatically different than my experience.
- inamberclad 4y agoOne of the best times I spent working is when I lived a 15 minute Caltrain ride, and a 15 minute walk from my work in Mountain View. I could, and often did, make the drive in half the the time for less money, but not driving also meant no time lost in traffic, waiting for other people, or dealing with all the risks of driving. Afterwards, I moved to Houston where driving is mandatory. Even though my commute wasn't as long and I worked more remotely, my mood and life satisfaction took a fairly large downturn.
- RickJWagner 4y agoI've loved cars for as long as I can remember. I've owned and built some classics. Last year, when the price of cars (and used cars) skyrocketed, I sold my ride. (A nice Lexus IS F. 416 of the sweetest sounding horses you'll ever hear.) My plan was to wait for prices to become sane again, then make my next selection in my long line of interesting vehicles. You know what? I've done just fine without a car. I can use my wife's/son's/daughters vehicle whenever I need to go someplace. When I was growing up we had one car for the whole family, but those were different days. Since I started my own family, it's been one vehicle for each adult that needs to get out of the house. I've learned we can get by on a lot less vehicular capacity. Still thinking about the right moves as car prices continue to decrease.
- j7ake 4y agoYour family owned four cars before you sold one off ? Outside of North America that would be considered a lot of cars. Maybe I misunderstood and you meant you had two cars and now you have one.
- RickJWagner 4y agoNo, you read it correctly. My children are all of driving age and must go to school/university. So they get older cars to transport themselves. It's not uncommon in rural areas of the US.
- ralferoo 4y agoI lived in London and took my car with me, because as it was an EV, I could get a free parking permit for it and I was exempt from the emissions tax. Honestly, the driving experience in London is terrible. When I did a few back-and-forth trips when moving between a temporary hotel and my house, it'd take 40 minutes each way to drive 3 miles through central London. It would almost have been quicker to walk, and certainly much quicker on the underground. I ended up only using my car a handful of times the whole year, and only when I was leaving London to visit family. I lived near the A40 expressway, so going north wasn't too problematic, but going south would usually take an hour to do the first 10 miles out of London. If I'd stayed in London, I'd definitely have got rid of the car entirely now. There's just not much use for it when public transport is good, or when things are close enough to walk (I'd usually prefer to walk most places that were within an hour's walk). What I do see as unfair in London now is that the costs of driving are extremely punitive if you don't have an EV, and this year they massively extended the area which is chargeable. It's simply not economically viable for most people to replace a car in these cases, as they probably don't get much use anyway, but also for any non-residents, it's also extremely easy to accidentally enter a chargeable area and then you're hit with a massive charge for the day.
- bbbbb5 4y agoI think central London is actually a pretty great place to drive if you can afford it. Westminster council doesn't tow, so you never have to look for a parking spot. Unlike some other European cities, the odds of being harassed by police while driving are essentially non-existent. Your car can be registered in Serbia and you won't be constantly pulled over and harassed like you would be in Germany, Netherlands, France or Spain. I even spent a month driving around without any registration plates and nobody said anything (they had been stolen, I had to physically go collect new ones from another country).
- ljf 4y agoYou were pretty lucky if you got away without being towed if you had no plates in Westminster - they will tow abandoned or untaxed cars. https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/has-your-vehicle-been-removed https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/has-your-vehicle-been...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fatnoah 4y agoI lived car-free in Boston for many years in the days before Uber and Lyft were a thing. I loved it. People always expected lack of a car to be constraining, but I actually found it liberating. Yes, I had to figure out transit, but not having to deal with parking and traffic meant I was very likely to simply hop off the bus/subway/train to check out something interesting along the way. I also appreciated the "down time" granted to me by walking or taking transit. I could zone out in a way not possible in the car, and for whatever reason that helped me relax.
- josephcsible 4y agoSome people care about having a yard and not having shared walls. Anywhere that's dense enough to not need cars will be too dense for those people to get what they want. In that light, car-free city proposals sound like "let's make things worse for people who care about different things than me, so that we can make them better for me".
- rolenthedeep 4y agoI briefly lived in Prague, and coming from the US, the difference was incredible. Almost anywhere I wanted to go was either within walking distance of my flat, or within walking distance of a metro stop. You could go anywhere in the city on a one or two dollar ticket. Absolutely beautiful. The best part was the corner grocery on every block. You could just stop in on your way home because the grocery was in the same physical building as your flat.
- pjmlp 4y agoOld great and good, except for everyone else that lives on city outskirts or surrounding towns. If public transport exists at all, it is mostly once per hour, only during business hours and hardly takes into account people with disabilities in access to the stations or buses.
- sershe 4y agoSince most comments are personal stories, here's mine as usual. Until I was 29 I didn't know how to drive, and walked/bike/took transit everywhere, living in Moscow Russia, downtown Vancouver BC, Bellevue WA. I also derided suburbs to the point where my most non libertarian belief was that they should only allow short term rentals for personal-use cars, via a very large tax on ownership like iirc in Denmark but higher - so you could rent one to go to the mountains or such, and nothing else. Phase it in over few decades so society reorganizes and car-centric areas die. When I learned to drive and got a car, I kept living in walkable areas, and my opinions didn't change much. Finally I moved to semi-suburbs (not even real suburbs, walkscore in the low 60s - not that I actually walk much) and realized I was wrong most of my life! The walkable areas are awesome for (1) children who can't drive, (2) frequent drinkers - so me until about ~26. After that, it was just inertia. For anything else, car-centric life is vastly better and walkable areas/transit mostly suck. I didn't even realize how much inconvenience I used to endure, it's like living without good heating and considering indoor layering and being cold the normal life, but then getting good heating.
- zzleeper 4y agoI'm not sure Bellevue or Moscow are that walkable. A walkable city is not just one where you can walk from A to B but where doing so is easy. For instance, think about downtown Barcelona. You can go to a bakery one block away on foot, then to the supermarket on the way back, and have easy access to tram/bus/metro/bike in every other case. Sure, you often want to use the car, but for most cases it's not needed. Within the US, maybe NY and parts of DC/Boston fit this... otherwise the lack of density makes it too inconvenient.
- sershe 4y agoBellevue WA downtown in particular is not ideal, but walkable. The only place I couldn't walk to was climbing gym, and also there's a big transit hub in the middle. Moscow is very walkable, even in most outer "apartment block suburbs" you can do anything within 2-7min walk. Plus it has frictionless subway 5am-1:30am or so - not like in NYC; on major lines train intervals are/used to be less than 1 minute at rush hour, and 7-8mins at 1am - so, you never even need to plan, you just go. Things tend to cluster around stations so city map becomes kinda like a 4x galaxy map of stuff. Walkability tends to decrease 10-20mins away from subway stations on foot, with more industrial areas and such, although basics like groceries and some cafes would still be there. Based on touristic experience in Europe (Germany, Spain although not Barcelona, Italy, England, etc.) it's about as walkable, across most of the city, for daily needs as European city centers. But why would I want to walk with X groceries for 5mins (potentially in the cold, heat, rain, ...), when I could drive for 15mins in comfort and get 5X groceries in one trip? Why would I take frictionless subway to a stadium for a concert when in a car centric city traffic allows one to just uber? Why would I walk to a whatever local X is available when I can drive to the best X in a large area in the same time? Or for more specialized hobbies, e.g. climbing gyms or large swimming pools, of which there may be 1-10 per city, and 1-2 good ones, why would I plan to live near one or endure transit when I could be much more flexible if I drive to one in a car friendly city? Etc.