4 ms·

The closest city from where I currently live has been trying really hard to push for alternative means of transportation. They envision more bycicles and public

by kleiba 2y ago

The closest city from where I currently live has been trying really hard to push for alternative means of transportation. They envision more bycicles and public transport, and in order to get there, they've been systematically making it harder for cars to operate in the city. Measures include less parking, low speed limits in the inner city, lots of one-way streets everywhere, presumably all with the intention of making car usage less appealing. And it is. Except that the result is that instead of switching to bikes or PT, people still use their cars but drive around in circles much longer which cannot be in anybody's interest. Or, if folks are sick of being nannied, they just drive to another big city that's not too far away, and do their shopping there.

sgu999 2y ago
> Except that the result is that instead of switching to bikes or PT, people still use their cars but drive around in circles much longer Do you have sources for that claim? Most cities in western Europe have been doing that, and it seems to pay off. The whole of the Netherlands or Copenhaguen are very good examples of policies like these having worked to the perfection, but it takes time for people to change their habits.
- kleiba 2y ago
  No source as in peer reviewed study, no, only anecdotal evidence (personal experience). To me, if you want less cars driving around, it would make sense to build the infrastructure in a way that they can get to their destination as quickly as possible. And it is certainly not a secret that inner cities in Europe - apart from maybe the big tourist magnets - have been dying for a number of years. There's already a big threat for stores in cities through internet shopping, and I've heard of concepts to counter that by designing cities in a way that shopping trips will become more wholesome "experiences". That is, if you go for a shopping day, it's not just from one store to the next, but there's an offer of exhibitions, shows, music etc. mixed with excellent dining opportunities etc., all interwoven with the commercial stores. But, if your "experience" begins with a drive designed to make it as hard as possible to get to where you want, I'm not sure it's going to work. You can try to change people's attitudes, but all things equal, for many people I would bet the ideal shopping experience would be the comfort of their own car to get to and from the shops, together with having the chance to drop off your bags every now and then in your own trunk.
  - guax 2y ago
    I think you make a big mistake in framing this shift in city design to accommodate shopping. Its made to accommodate living. People need walkable safe cities to go to work, school, doctors, restaurants and yes, shopping occasionally. The different is that this shift is not meant to improve a shopping street, is meant to improve a residential one that would have only parking and narrow sidewalks. If you walk in Amsterdam outside of the inner canal rings, you'll see people using the streets as extensions of their living spaces, little gardens, benches for when the sun is hitting just right, talking to friends and making birthday parties. The idea is to change the streets to be pleasant to be in, not just pass through. With remote work and online shopping cities have to change from the place where we work, buy stuff and get the hell out to places we actually want to live in.
    - kleiba 2y ago
      I've never claimed that this shift is being made (only) to accommodate shopping. But it's a fact that inner city shopping is in crisis and it is in the interest of city administrations to take counter-measures. However, the strategies to handle car traffic (probably, like you say, with the intention to improve other aspects of life in the city) are detrimental to that effort. Not every potential customer of inner city shops actually lives in the city. As a matter of fact, where I currently live, none of the smaller suburbs and town in the vicinity of my next bigger cities do not have themselves alternatives for many of the commercial offers of the city. In other words, many many (potential) customers need to first travel to the city. If you ask these people, many will tell you that there is currently no viable alternative to the car for such a trip. And almost everyone would appreciate if their trip would be less painful, not more painful. Of course you can argue that city planners should first and foremost care for the people that live in the city, not the ones that live around it.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    So, if you think that the primary purpose of a city is to act as a sort of large shopping mall for people who live outside it, maybe I can _kind_ of see your point? That’s an exceedingly weird conception of a city, though, particularly given that, well, actual shopping malls have existed for some time. As has internet shopping. Like, if you’re trying to rescue the department store, you are way, way too late. Though, also, even then, I’m not sure that you’re correct. The two main shopping streets in the city I live in are pedestrianised, and have been since the 1980s or so. There are a few (very expensive) multistory car parks dotted around the city, but, well, in practice you see plenty of people on trains and buses and trams with shopping bags from the shops on these streets. I think this is pretty much the case in any largeish city I’ve ever been in, actually; there’s generally not much parking on or near the major shopping streets.
janalsncm 2y ago
There’s definitely an uncanny valley where cars are inconvenient but bikes/busses/walking isn’t awesome either. I read somewhere that car-centric spacing is essentially 10x more spread out than pedestrian-centric spacing. So if you don’t change the spacing but simply ban cars it doesn’t move the needle very much.
- kleiba 2y ago
  I don't buy the claim that the only solution is to push cars completely out of the cities. That's not going to work, I'm sure, without offering an equally good alternative to the comfort that your own car gives you. Especially with internet shopping eating the lunch of traditional brick and mortar stores. Online shopping offers many advantages in many cases. Cities already have to work really hard to get shoppers back, and of course that requires changing things up. But if the hope is "sure, there's going to be a transitional phase, but people will get used to PT/bikes/walking and inner city shopping will flourish again", I'm afraid that there's a very good chance that this is going to backfire big time.
Eisenstein 2y ago
I think that considering it as being 'nannied' is the wrong perspective. Cities are not inherently meant to have cars in them. In fact when cars were emerging as a transport option people had to be convinced to allow them in cities, since they would frequently run people over who were using the streets as they were designed to be used. We have purposefully made cars a central part of cities and the populations of those cities have suffered a decrease in their quality of life as a direct effect. Between pollution, constant noise, collisions and deaths and congestion, and the taking up of vast amounts of space for something that sits around most of the time doing nothing, cities have become far less livable as cars have been prioritized over people. To call it 'nannying' to backpedal a bit from this design decision is missing the fact that cities are not a natural environment -- they are purposefully designed from the sub-surface pipes and tunnels to the spires on top of the buildings. Nothing evolved naturally -- someone, sometime, decided to design cars into them, and they can be designed out.
- kleiba 2y ago
  > I think that considering it as being 'nannied' is the wrong perspective. I just want to point out that this is not necessarily *my* perspective, but I know a lot of people who have already become used to classify all kinds of regulations that way. You may try telling them that it's the wrong perspective, but it won't change anything, I'm afraid. I agree with the historical perspective you sketch (more appropriate for European cities than American ones, though), but disagree with most of your conclusions.
rsynnott 2y ago
> Except that the result is that instead of switching to bikes or PT, people still use their cars but drive around in circles much longer which cannot be in anybody's interest. Is there data on that? Have they made the necessary concurrent improvements to public transport? Generally, fewer private cars allows public transport (or, at least, buses and trams) to operate way more effectively. Like, the city I live in (Dublin) has been doing this for about a decade, and the bus system in particular has gone from ‘notoriously, comically, embarrassingly bad’ to merely quite bad. It isn’t a great example, and is very much a work in progress (the latest absurdity: a bus I use from time to time now runs way faster due to private car restriction on the quays, but they haven’t gotten around to changing the schedule yet, so it sometimes just _stops_ for 10 minutes, with a helpful robot announcement indicating that it’s to keep on schedule…), but it has, to some extent, worked; people do use public transport way more, and it’s generally easier to get around the city.
dns_snek 2y ago
> presumably all with the intention of making car usage less appealing. Spiting car drivers isn't the intent, it's a side effect of making cities more bearable for all other inhabitants. Lower speed limits have benefits in their own right, they significantly reduce noise pollution which makes the outside atmosphere bearable or even pleasant, and it makes roads much safer for cyclists and pedestrians, especially children and people with disabilities. Less parking for cars means more space for greenery, space for businesses to set up patios, space for bike lanes and wider walkways.

by kleiba 2y ago

sgu999 2y ago

> Except that the result is that instead of switching to bikes or PT, people still use their cars but drive around in circles much longer Do you have sources for that claim? Most cities in western Europe have been doing that, and it seems to pay off. The whole of the Netherlands or Copenhaguen are very good examples of policies like these having worked to the perfection, but it takes time for people to change their habits.

kleiba 2y ago
No source as in peer reviewed study, no, only anecdotal evidence (personal experience). To me, if you want less cars driving around, it would make sense to build the infrastructure in a way that they can get to their destination as quickly as possible. And it is certainly not a secret that inner cities in Europe - apart from maybe the big tourist magnets - have been dying for a number of years. There's already a big threat for stores in cities through internet shopping, and I've heard of concepts to counter that by designing cities in a way that shopping trips will become more wholesome "experiences". That is, if you go for a shopping day, it's not just from one store to the next, but there's an offer of exhibitions, shows, music etc. mixed with excellent dining opportunities etc., all interwoven with the commercial stores. But, if your "experience" begins with a drive designed to make it as hard as possible to get to where you want, I'm not sure it's going to work. You can try to change people's attitudes, but all things equal, for many people I would bet the ideal shopping experience would be the comfort of their own car to get to and from the shops, together with having the chance to drop off your bags every now and then in your own trunk.
- guax 2y ago
  I think you make a big mistake in framing this shift in city design to accommodate shopping. Its made to accommodate living. People need walkable safe cities to go to work, school, doctors, restaurants and yes, shopping occasionally. The different is that this shift is not meant to improve a shopping street, is meant to improve a residential one that would have only parking and narrow sidewalks. If you walk in Amsterdam outside of the inner canal rings, you'll see people using the streets as extensions of their living spaces, little gardens, benches for when the sun is hitting just right, talking to friends and making birthday parties. The idea is to change the streets to be pleasant to be in, not just pass through. With remote work and online shopping cities have to change from the place where we work, buy stuff and get the hell out to places we actually want to live in.
  - kleiba 2y ago
    I've never claimed that this shift is being made (only) to accommodate shopping. But it's a fact that inner city shopping is in crisis and it is in the interest of city administrations to take counter-measures. However, the strategies to handle car traffic (probably, like you say, with the intention to improve other aspects of life in the city) are detrimental to that effort. Not every potential customer of inner city shops actually lives in the city. As a matter of fact, where I currently live, none of the smaller suburbs and town in the vicinity of my next bigger cities do not have themselves alternatives for many of the commercial offers of the city. In other words, many many (potential) customers need to first travel to the city. If you ask these people, many will tell you that there is currently no viable alternative to the car for such a trip. And almost everyone would appreciate if their trip would be less painful, not more painful. Of course you can argue that city planners should first and foremost care for the people that live in the city, not the ones that live around it.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  So, if you think that the primary purpose of a city is to act as a sort of large shopping mall for people who live outside it, maybe I can _kind_ of see your point? That’s an exceedingly weird conception of a city, though, particularly given that, well, actual shopping malls have existed for some time. As has internet shopping. Like, if you’re trying to rescue the department store, you are way, way too late. Though, also, even then, I’m not sure that you’re correct. The two main shopping streets in the city I live in are pedestrianised, and have been since the 1980s or so. There are a few (very expensive) multistory car parks dotted around the city, but, well, in practice you see plenty of people on trains and buses and trams with shopping bags from the shops on these streets. I think this is pretty much the case in any largeish city I’ve ever been in, actually; there’s generally not much parking on or near the major shopping streets.

janalsncm 2y ago

There’s definitely an uncanny valley where cars are inconvenient but bikes/busses/walking isn’t awesome either. I read somewhere that car-centric spacing is essentially 10x more spread out than pedestrian-centric spacing. So if you don’t change the spacing but simply ban cars it doesn’t move the needle very much.

kleiba 2y ago
I don't buy the claim that the only solution is to push cars completely out of the cities. That's not going to work, I'm sure, without offering an equally good alternative to the comfort that your own car gives you. Especially with internet shopping eating the lunch of traditional brick and mortar stores. Online shopping offers many advantages in many cases. Cities already have to work really hard to get shoppers back, and of course that requires changing things up. But if the hope is "sure, there's going to be a transitional phase, but people will get used to PT/bikes/walking and inner city shopping will flourish again", I'm afraid that there's a very good chance that this is going to backfire big time.

Eisenstein 2y ago

I think that considering it as being 'nannied' is the wrong perspective. Cities are not inherently meant to have cars in them. In fact when cars were emerging as a transport option people had to be convinced to allow them in cities, since they would frequently run people over who were using the streets as they were designed to be used. We have purposefully made cars a central part of cities and the populations of those cities have suffered a decrease in their quality of life as a direct effect. Between pollution, constant noise, collisions and deaths and congestion, and the taking up of vast amounts of space for something that sits around most of the time doing nothing, cities have become far less livable as cars have been prioritized over people. To call it 'nannying' to backpedal a bit from this design decision is missing the fact that cities are not a natural environment -- they are purposefully designed from the sub-surface pipes and tunnels to the spires on top of the buildings. Nothing evolved naturally -- someone, sometime, decided to design cars into them, and they can be designed out.

kleiba 2y ago
> I think that considering it as being 'nannied' is the wrong perspective. I just want to point out that this is not necessarily *my* perspective, but I know a lot of people who have already become used to classify all kinds of regulations that way. You may try telling them that it's the wrong perspective, but it won't change anything, I'm afraid. I agree with the historical perspective you sketch (more appropriate for European cities than American ones, though), but disagree with most of your conclusions.

rsynnott 2y ago

> Except that the result is that instead of switching to bikes or PT, people still use their cars but drive around in circles much longer which cannot be in anybody's interest. Is there data on that? Have they made the necessary concurrent improvements to public transport? Generally, fewer private cars allows public transport (or, at least, buses and trams) to operate way more effectively. Like, the city I live in (Dublin) has been doing this for about a decade, and the bus system in particular has gone from ‘notoriously, comically, embarrassingly bad’ to merely quite bad. It isn’t a great example, and is very much a work in progress (the latest absurdity: a bus I use from time to time now runs way faster due to private car restriction on the quays, but they haven’t gotten around to changing the schedule yet, so it sometimes just _stops_ for 10 minutes, with a helpful robot announcement indicating that it’s to keep on schedule…), but it has, to some extent, worked; people do use public transport way more, and it’s generally easier to get around the city.

dns_snek 2y ago

> presumably all with the intention of making car usage less appealing. Spiting car drivers isn't the intent, it's a side effect of making cities more bearable for all other inhabitants. Lower speed limits have benefits in their own right, they significantly reduce noise pollution which makes the outside atmosphere bearable or even pleasant, and it makes roads much safer for cyclists and pedestrians, especially children and people with disabilities. Less parking for cars means more space for greenery, space for businesses to set up patios, space for bike lanes and wider walkways.