6 ms·

"Ban all the cars" does have noticeable effects. I wonder if something less all / none might have nearly the same effects with far less drawbacks otherwise. E

"Ban all the cars" does have noticeable effects. I wonder if something less all / none might have nearly the same effects with far less drawbacks otherwise. E.G. What if only emissions testing certified low emission vehicles were allowed? What if only electric? How about requiring quiet utility trucks for garbage / freight / etc? For cities that large / dense, adding in Caves of Steel like people-mover belts might be a great alternative too.

iambateman 2y ago
Paris has certainly not banned all cars. Just reduced their numbers.
Doctor_Fegg 2y ago
> What if only electric? Then the streets would still be unsafe and congested, just with a bit less pollution.
10-1-100 2y ago
With modern emissions standards, more than 50% of the harmful pollution comes from tires/brakes/road surface wear/resuspended dust: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate-emissions-from-road-transport_4a4dc6ca-en/full-report.html#section-d1e2753 https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate... Moving away from privately owned cars entirely seems to be the only way to eliminate the health impact of cars on people in a city.
- stavros 2y ago
  Are publicly-owned cars somehow not emitting anything? Or, how else will people get around? I live in a European city, where I rarely use my car to get around. Banning cars won't do anything, because I don't use my car because I can, I use it because I have to. If you want to get rid of cars, design cities that can be lived in without having to use cars.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    People wouldn't use publicly-owned cars, they would used publicly-owned buses, trams, subways, and other forms of mass transit, plus (as the article points out), making it easier to walk or bike. I believe the goal of limiting car use in Paris is as part of re-designing the city so it can be lived in without having to use cars, yes.
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  > With modern emissions standards, more than 50% of the harmful pollution comes from tires/brakes/road surface wear/resuspended dust: Sure, but what about compared to eg. 15 year old diesels with removed DPF filters? Those were the cars that were removed from paris (with the "eco stickers" and other regulation), and that brought the pollution down. New cars exhaust very little particulate matter, so percantages don't say a lot. I mean.. almost 100% of the polution of bicyles comes from tires/brakes/road surface/resuspended dust, but the total amount is very low.
Tireings 2y ago
P&R outside of a city with good connection to city core would be great. You would also save sitting in traffic. And it would push the quality of public transport
pama 2y ago
In modern cars, including EV, polution and noise come from weight and tires and breaks; the polution levels are a sharp funxtion of speed, but the speeds at which they dont matter much, dont offer benefits either. If we had magnetic/levitated cars maybe some simple solution could be found, but with the current designs where the tires hit the asphalt it seems hard to make things environmentally friendly in a city other than reducing or banning cars. I like the idea of people-mover belts. Maybe fast surface belts and escalators could help larger cities if cars were out of the way. Subway systems almost feel like people-mover belts sometimes, but their noise levels are incredibly high and they do damage metalic rails during breaking so not sure how low the contribution to air polution could be.
- stavros 2y ago
  This is a bad-faith fallacy. We had cars that emitted X amounts of tyre/brake particulate and 10X amounts of combustion residue, we got rid of the combustion part, and now we hear "OMG! 100% is tyre particulate!!!" Sure, but people won't stop moving, and there's no vacuum, you should compare brake particulate to whatever else people would use if cars didn't exist.
  - microtonal 2y ago
    Or you could just make a city car-free. There are so many benefits besides fewer particles in the air. People can walk and cycle safely. Kids can play in the streets. The atmosphere is so much nicer, since people are not isolated by walls around them. I have lived in a city with a (nearly) car-free city center (+ separate bike lines for many roads outside the center) for most of my adult life [1] and it is just glorious. Most locals just walk or cycle. Longer distances by (electric) bus or train. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen#Cycling_and_walking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen#Cycling_and_walking
    - Saline9515 2y ago
      Kids can't play in streets as now the new predators are cyclists who don't slow down or get down of their bikes. Besides, cars are a staple for families, and hardly substituable. Good luck doing groceries for 6 without one.
jfengel 2y ago
It's not just about emissions. The entire character of the area changes. The streets fill with pedestrians and bicycles. Garbage trucks and ambulances still use the streets. But they face no traffic and are exceptions rather than the rule. They don't need to be either low emission or quiet, though those things are also nice to have, since those things are no longer the most pressing issues.
wffurr 2y ago
Compare with the ULEV zone in other cities and control for other differences. You could possibly even publish that as a research paper!
thrance 2y ago
I live in Paris, cars haven't all been banned. Some streets have been made pedestrians only and some lanes have been converted into bike lanes, but overall you can drive almost everywhere in the city (although that was always painful). We have that certificate you mention. Today in most large cities in France, some streets are forbidden to cars that have a bad "Crit'air" score. It's a sticker you have to order online, with a number from 1 to 6. What number you receive is dependent on your car's model and its age. You have to put it under your windshield or risk getting fined by the police.
appreciatorBus 2y ago
I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Paris program but a "car ban" doesn't have to ban garbage & freight trucks. I'd argue these, along with private or public transit, emergency vehicles etc, are the best uses for the internal combustion engine or just vehicles in general. The problem with ICE/car/vehicles, isn't that they exist or are useful, but that at some point we over-indexed on their utility and ignored their externalities & subsidies.
panick21_ 2y ago
Cars need to be banned not primary because of emissions but because they are just generally bad in every wy. They need lots of space, even if they are not actually there (parking lots), they are unsafe and the slow down every other transport method and all the utility functions as well. Plus they are fucking ugly. A city is just 10x more beautiful without cars, and the place in the cities where most people actually want to hang out, doesn't have cars. No idea what 'people mover belts' are. We already have trains in various forms, add bikes and maybe some scooters to that and your done. Plus of course lots of walking. For garbage transport and cargo, it would actually be nice to use the existing tram lines. Zürich has something like that but its experimental. But it should be more developed. Until then, small electric trucks are a good solution. Most of this can be done overnight when the tram lines aren't used much.
HexPhantom 2y ago
The most effective changes probably come from stacking a bunch of smaller, less dramatic policies that add up over time: cleaner vehicles, better public transit, quieter freight solutions, smarter zoning, etc

iambateman 2y ago

Paris has certainly not banned all cars. Just reduced their numbers.

Doctor_Fegg 2y ago

> What if only electric? Then the streets would still be unsafe and congested, just with a bit less pollution.

10-1-100 2y ago

With modern emissions standards, more than 50% of the harmful pollution comes from tires/brakes/road surface wear/resuspended dust: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate-emissions-from-road-transport_4a4dc6ca-en/full-report.html#section-d1e2753 https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate... Moving away from privately owned cars entirely seems to be the only way to eliminate the health impact of cars on people in a city.

stavros 2y ago
Are publicly-owned cars somehow not emitting anything? Or, how else will people get around? I live in a European city, where I rarely use my car to get around. Banning cars won't do anything, because I don't use my car because I can, I use it because I have to. If you want to get rid of cars, design cities that can be lived in without having to use cars.
- eesmith 2y ago
  People wouldn't use publicly-owned cars, they would used publicly-owned buses, trams, subways, and other forms of mass transit, plus (as the article points out), making it easier to walk or bike. I believe the goal of limiting car use in Paris is as part of re-designing the city so it can be lived in without having to use cars, yes.
ajsnigrutin 2y ago
> With modern emissions standards, more than 50% of the harmful pollution comes from tires/brakes/road surface wear/resuspended dust: Sure, but what about compared to eg. 15 year old diesels with removed DPF filters? Those were the cars that were removed from paris (with the "eco stickers" and other regulation), and that brought the pollution down. New cars exhaust very little particulate matter, so percantages don't say a lot. I mean.. almost 100% of the polution of bicyles comes from tires/brakes/road surface/resuspended dust, but the total amount is very low.

Tireings 2y ago

P&R outside of a city with good connection to city core would be great. You would also save sitting in traffic. And it would push the quality of public transport

pama 2y ago

In modern cars, including EV, polution and noise come from weight and tires and breaks; the polution levels are a sharp funxtion of speed, but the speeds at which they dont matter much, dont offer benefits either. If we had magnetic/levitated cars maybe some simple solution could be found, but with the current designs where the tires hit the asphalt it seems hard to make things environmentally friendly in a city other than reducing or banning cars. I like the idea of people-mover belts. Maybe fast surface belts and escalators could help larger cities if cars were out of the way. Subway systems almost feel like people-mover belts sometimes, but their noise levels are incredibly high and they do damage metalic rails during breaking so not sure how low the contribution to air polution could be.

stavros 2y ago
This is a bad-faith fallacy. We had cars that emitted X amounts of tyre/brake particulate and 10X amounts of combustion residue, we got rid of the combustion part, and now we hear "OMG! 100% is tyre particulate!!!" Sure, but people won't stop moving, and there's no vacuum, you should compare brake particulate to whatever else people would use if cars didn't exist.
- microtonal 2y ago
  Or you could just make a city car-free. There are so many benefits besides fewer particles in the air. People can walk and cycle safely. Kids can play in the streets. The atmosphere is so much nicer, since people are not isolated by walls around them. I have lived in a city with a (nearly) car-free city center (+ separate bike lines for many roads outside the center) for most of my adult life [1] and it is just glorious. Most locals just walk or cycle. Longer distances by (electric) bus or train. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen#Cycling_and_walking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen#Cycling_and_walking
  - Saline9515 2y ago
    Kids can't play in streets as now the new predators are cyclists who don't slow down or get down of their bikes. Besides, cars are a staple for families, and hardly substituable. Good luck doing groceries for 6 without one.

jfengel 2y ago

It's not just about emissions. The entire character of the area changes. The streets fill with pedestrians and bicycles. Garbage trucks and ambulances still use the streets. But they face no traffic and are exceptions rather than the rule. They don't need to be either low emission or quiet, though those things are also nice to have, since those things are no longer the most pressing issues.

wffurr 2y ago

Compare with the ULEV zone in other cities and control for other differences. You could possibly even publish that as a research paper!

thrance 2y ago

I live in Paris, cars haven't all been banned. Some streets have been made pedestrians only and some lanes have been converted into bike lanes, but overall you can drive almost everywhere in the city (although that was always painful). We have that certificate you mention. Today in most large cities in France, some streets are forbidden to cars that have a bad "Crit'air" score. It's a sticker you have to order online, with a number from 1 to 6. What number you receive is dependent on your car's model and its age. You have to put it under your windshield or risk getting fined by the police.

appreciatorBus 2y ago

I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Paris program but a "car ban" doesn't have to ban garbage & freight trucks. I'd argue these, along with private or public transit, emergency vehicles etc, are the best uses for the internal combustion engine or just vehicles in general. The problem with ICE/car/vehicles, isn't that they exist or are useful, but that at some point we over-indexed on their utility and ignored their externalities & subsidies.

panick21_ 2y ago

Cars need to be banned not primary because of emissions but because they are just generally bad in every wy. They need lots of space, even if they are not actually there (parking lots), they are unsafe and the slow down every other transport method and all the utility functions as well. Plus they are fucking ugly. A city is just 10x more beautiful without cars, and the place in the cities where most people actually want to hang out, doesn't have cars. No idea what 'people mover belts' are. We already have trains in various forms, add bikes and maybe some scooters to that and your done. Plus of course lots of walking. For garbage transport and cargo, it would actually be nice to use the existing tram lines. Zürich has something like that but its experimental. But it should be more developed. Until then, small electric trucks are a good solution. Most of this can be done overnight when the tram lines aren't used much.

HexPhantom 2y ago

The most effective changes probably come from stacking a bunch of smaller, less dramatic policies that add up over time: cleaner vehicles, better public transit, quieter freight solutions, smarter zoning, etc