7 ms·

It is, though the problem predates the cars. At the time cars were seen as a huge win over the vast piles of horse poop. Cities do need to be reconsidered for

It is, though the problem predates the cars. At the time cars were seen as a huge win over the vast piles of horse poop. Cities do need to be reconsidered for more public transit and more opportunities to walk, but other issues (delivery, emergency, disability, etc) have to figure in.

EA-3167 2y ago
Not just horse poop, but dead horses that were quite the chore to remove back in the day, and the danger posed to pedestrians by a bunch of quite large and easily panicked animals.
- 1over137 2y ago
  We still have that danger. But the animals are homo sapiens and they are surrounded by 2 tonnes of metal. :)
  - EA-3167 2y ago
    This is true, but from the perspective of the time, automobiles were far from "2 tons of metal" and quite a bit slower. They were also a rich man's conveyance, even more so than a nice carriage, and I doubt people understood early on just how widely adopted the automobile would become. A lack of foresight is also very human.
    - heresie-dabord 2y ago
      >A lack of foresight is also very human. Let's call it what it really is. The stubborn unwillingness to consider scalability in our designs and planning — even in an era where a machine can do calculation for us.
  - Tade0 2y ago
    One of the early examples of the Poisson distribution was the rate at which soldiers in the Prussian army would be fatally kicked by horses. Translates to a little over 30 deaths per year per million, so not a lot, though I suspect the number would have been much greater adjusted for distance travelled and even without that it's more than some countries achieve with their traffic.
oblio 2y ago
Let's be real here, a huge chunk of car traffic in cities is purely for convenience. Once that's reduced by say, 50%, everything becomes much better, but nobody gives up convenience voluntarily.
- Saline9515 2y ago
  The problem is that, among casualties, you create an environment that is hostile for families and disabled people.
  - loloquwowndueo 2y ago
    Only if you just remove the cars without replacing them with good public transportation (family friendly, accessible, with special modes for disabled people).
    - Saline9515 2y ago
      Which doesn't exist and is hardly possible in Paris.
  - chadd 2y ago
    i'm not sure this is true, for instance NYC ranks as the second most disabled-friendly city https://www.amny.com/lifestyle/new-york-city-ranks-2nd-in-a-study-revealing-the-worlds-most-disability-friendly-cities/#:~:text=New%20York%20City%20ranks%202nd,world's%20most%20disability%2Dfriendly%20cities https://www.amny.com/lifestyle/new-york-city-ranks-2nd-in-a-...
    - Saline9515 2y ago
      In Paris, 90% of the metro transportation system isn't accessible to wheelchairs and strollers. Buses are overcrowded and slow. Who doesn't enjoy to see someone cough on their newborn while fighting for a space for their stoller ?
      - 2y ago
SequoiaHope 2y ago
There was a time in between, where electric streetcars (trains) were a common mode of transport. But those got torn up for cars. That’s a real tragedy in hindsight.
- flomo 2y ago
  That's the myth. Streetcars were actually torn up because busses were much cheaper, there was no conspiracy. The streetcars were also old and cold and ppl hated them. (I lived in a streetcar part of SF, and loved it, fwiw. But the only reason it's still there is a tunnel.)
  - oblio 2y ago
    Many other places just... upgraded the trams. You know, the less radical solution.
    - flomo 2y ago
      A bus is the least radical thing IMO, but yeah it took too long in most of USA to get some mass transit better than streetcars.
  - jmward01 2y ago
    That is a statement that really needs citation and qualification to back it up. I'd argue that 'cheaper' is used in a vacuum here. By that I mean that the point of mass transit isn't how much it costs, but how much value it provides. By that measure the bus services that replaced streetcars and other mass transit really doesn't stack up. Busses have led to much lower ridership which has led to a massive amount of bad secondary effects. Looking at how congestion pricing in NYC has increased mass transit use AND economic activity it is pretty clear that 'cheaper' has led to secondary effects that far outweigh any narrow operational gains from switching to busses.
    - flomo 2y ago
      The citation is every American transit system in the 1950s. Even SF only kept the streetcars where they couldn't replace with a bus line. I think you're making a different argument, where trains attract a more well-heeled commuter. Which is why many cities have brought back LRT as part of a redevelopment plan.
ximeng 2y ago
Just like the promise of EVs to replace the exhaust from ICE cars is seen as a win.
Mawr 2y ago
Those "other issues" are all worse with private cars than without.
tzs 2y ago
They were also seen as a safety win [1][2]. Horses and horse drawn carts were a lot more dangerous than most people here probably think they were. From the second link: > It is easy to imagine that a hundred years ago, when cars were first appearing on our roads, they replaced previously peaceful, gentle and safe forms of travel. In fact, motor vehicles were welcomed as the answer to a desperate state of affairs. In 1900 it was calculated that in England and Wales there were around 100,000 horse drawn public passenger vehicles, half a million trade vehicles and about half a million private carriages. Towns in England had to cope with over 100 million tons of horse droppings a year (much of it was dumped at night in the slums) and countless gallons of urine. Men wore spats and women favoured outdoor ankle-length coats not out of a sense of fashion but because of the splash of liquified manure; and it was so noisy that straw had to be put down outside hospitals to muffle the clatter of horses’ hooves. Worst of all, with horses and carriages locked in immovable traffic jams, transport was grinding to a halt in London and other cities. > Moreover, horse-drawn transport was not safe. Road traffic deaths from horse-drawn vehicles in England and Wales between 1901 and 1905 were about 2,500 a year. This works out as about 70 road traffic deaths per million population per year which is close to the annual rate of 80 to 100 deaths per million for road traffic accidents in the 1980s and 1990s, although we must not forget that many people who died from injuries sustained in road accidents in 1900 would probably have survived today thanks to our A&E departments. > Motor vehicles were welcomed because they were faster, safer, unlikely to swerve or bolt, better able brake in an emergency, and took up less room: a single large lorry could pull a load that would take several teams of horses and wagons – and do so without producing any dung. By World War One industry had become dependent on lorries, traffic cruised freely down Oxford Street and Piccadilly, specialists parked their expensive cars ouside their houses in Harley and Wimpole Street, and the lives of general practitioners were transformed. By using even the cheapest of cars doctors no longer had to wake the stable lad and harness the horse to attend a night call. Instead it was ‘one pull of the handle and they were off’. Further, general practitioners could visit nearly twice as many patients in a day than they could in the days of the horse and trap. [1] https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-deaths-per-capita-in-horse-accidents-in-nyc-in-1900-than-in-auto-accidents-today/ https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-deaths-p... [2]https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/cars-and-horses https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/cars-and-horse...
Sloowms 2y ago
Emergency response times go down in almost any case where car use is restricted. In the Netherlands emergency vehicles take bike lane shortcuts because people on bikes can move out of the way more easily. In New York, congestion pricing reduced the response times of emergency services. Disability needs an annotations for only specific disabilities that don't inhibit driving. Which is a small subset of disabilities. Delivery of most things can be done with small cars/trucks.

EA-3167 2y ago

Not just horse poop, but dead horses that were quite the chore to remove back in the day, and the danger posed to pedestrians by a bunch of quite large and easily panicked animals.

1over137 2y ago
We still have that danger. But the animals are homo sapiens and they are surrounded by 2 tonnes of metal. :)
- EA-3167 2y ago
  This is true, but from the perspective of the time, automobiles were far from "2 tons of metal" and quite a bit slower. They were also a rich man's conveyance, even more so than a nice carriage, and I doubt people understood early on just how widely adopted the automobile would become. A lack of foresight is also very human.
  - heresie-dabord 2y ago
    >A lack of foresight is also very human. Let's call it what it really is. The stubborn unwillingness to consider scalability in our designs and planning — even in an era where a machine can do calculation for us.
- Tade0 2y ago
  One of the early examples of the Poisson distribution was the rate at which soldiers in the Prussian army would be fatally kicked by horses. Translates to a little over 30 deaths per year per million, so not a lot, though I suspect the number would have been much greater adjusted for distance travelled and even without that it's more than some countries achieve with their traffic.

oblio 2y ago

Let's be real here, a huge chunk of car traffic in cities is purely for convenience. Once that's reduced by say, 50%, everything becomes much better, but nobody gives up convenience voluntarily.

Saline9515 2y ago
The problem is that, among casualties, you create an environment that is hostile for families and disabled people.
- loloquwowndueo 2y ago
  Only if you just remove the cars without replacing them with good public transportation (family friendly, accessible, with special modes for disabled people).
  - Saline9515 2y ago
    Which doesn't exist and is hardly possible in Paris.
- chadd 2y ago
  i'm not sure this is true, for instance NYC ranks as the second most disabled-friendly city https://www.amny.com/lifestyle/new-york-city-ranks-2nd-in-a-study-revealing-the-worlds-most-disability-friendly-cities/#:~:text=New%20York%20City%20ranks%202nd,world's%20most%20disability%2Dfriendly%20cities https://www.amny.com/lifestyle/new-york-city-ranks-2nd-in-a-...
  - Saline9515 2y ago
    In Paris, 90% of the metro transportation system isn't accessible to wheelchairs and strollers. Buses are overcrowded and slow. Who doesn't enjoy to see someone cough on their newborn while fighting for a space for their stoller ?
    - 2y ago

SequoiaHope 2y ago

There was a time in between, where electric streetcars (trains) were a common mode of transport. But those got torn up for cars. That’s a real tragedy in hindsight.

flomo 2y ago
That's the myth. Streetcars were actually torn up because busses were much cheaper, there was no conspiracy. The streetcars were also old and cold and ppl hated them. (I lived in a streetcar part of SF, and loved it, fwiw. But the only reason it's still there is a tunnel.)
- oblio 2y ago
  Many other places just... upgraded the trams. You know, the less radical solution.
  - flomo 2y ago
    A bus is the least radical thing IMO, but yeah it took too long in most of USA to get some mass transit better than streetcars.
- jmward01 2y ago
  That is a statement that really needs citation and qualification to back it up. I'd argue that 'cheaper' is used in a vacuum here. By that I mean that the point of mass transit isn't how much it costs, but how much value it provides. By that measure the bus services that replaced streetcars and other mass transit really doesn't stack up. Busses have led to much lower ridership which has led to a massive amount of bad secondary effects. Looking at how congestion pricing in NYC has increased mass transit use AND economic activity it is pretty clear that 'cheaper' has led to secondary effects that far outweigh any narrow operational gains from switching to busses.
  - flomo 2y ago
    The citation is every American transit system in the 1950s. Even SF only kept the streetcars where they couldn't replace with a bus line. I think you're making a different argument, where trains attract a more well-heeled commuter. Which is why many cities have brought back LRT as part of a redevelopment plan.

ximeng 2y ago

Just like the promise of EVs to replace the exhaust from ICE cars is seen as a win.

Mawr 2y ago

Those "other issues" are all worse with private cars than without.

tzs 2y ago

They were also seen as a safety win [1][2]. Horses and horse drawn carts were a lot more dangerous than most people here probably think they were. From the second link: > It is easy to imagine that a hundred years ago, when cars were first appearing on our roads, they replaced previously peaceful, gentle and safe forms of travel. In fact, motor vehicles were welcomed as the answer to a desperate state of affairs. In 1900 it was calculated that in England and Wales there were around 100,000 horse drawn public passenger vehicles, half a million trade vehicles and about half a million private carriages. Towns in England had to cope with over 100 million tons of horse droppings a year (much of it was dumped at night in the slums) and countless gallons of urine. Men wore spats and women favoured outdoor ankle-length coats not out of a sense of fashion but because of the splash of liquified manure; and it was so noisy that straw had to be put down outside hospitals to muffle the clatter of horses’ hooves. Worst of all, with horses and carriages locked in immovable traffic jams, transport was grinding to a halt in London and other cities. > Moreover, horse-drawn transport was not safe. Road traffic deaths from horse-drawn vehicles in England and Wales between 1901 and 1905 were about 2,500 a year. This works out as about 70 road traffic deaths per million population per year which is close to the annual rate of 80 to 100 deaths per million for road traffic accidents in the 1980s and 1990s, although we must not forget that many people who died from injuries sustained in road accidents in 1900 would probably have survived today thanks to our A&E departments. > Motor vehicles were welcomed because they were faster, safer, unlikely to swerve or bolt, better able brake in an emergency, and took up less room: a single large lorry could pull a load that would take several teams of horses and wagons – and do so without producing any dung. By World War One industry had become dependent on lorries, traffic cruised freely down Oxford Street and Piccadilly, specialists parked their expensive cars ouside their houses in Harley and Wimpole Street, and the lives of general practitioners were transformed. By using even the cheapest of cars doctors no longer had to wake the stable lad and harness the horse to attend a night call. Instead it was ‘one pull of the handle and they were off’. Further, general practitioners could visit nearly twice as many patients in a day than they could in the days of the horse and trap. [1] https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-deaths-per-capita-in-horse-accidents-in-nyc-in-1900-than-in-auto-accidents-today/ https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-deaths-p... [2]https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/cars-and-horses https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/cars-and-horse...

Sloowms 2y ago

Emergency response times go down in almost any case where car use is restricted. In the Netherlands emergency vehicles take bike lane shortcuts because people on bikes can move out of the way more easily. In New York, congestion pricing reduced the response times of emergency services. Disability needs an annotations for only specific disabilities that don't inhibit driving. Which is a small subset of disabilities. Delivery of most things can be done with small cars/trucks.