7 ms·

Extra space, cleaner air, healthier and happier people, safer streets... Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? Leave the roads fo

Extra space, cleaner air, healthier and happier people, safer streets... Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? Leave the roads for cyclists, public transportation, emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. Suburbanites can park outside of the city can go the rest of the way via bus/train/bicycle. http://ecooptimism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bike-bus-car.jpg http://ecooptimism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bike-bus-c...

zacinbusiness 13y ago
The automobile-industrial complex that destroyed public transportation in the US would never let it happen here. Maybe in other countries it's a possibility. Or maybe in the future when the major car manufacturers FINALLY go under. I support visionary tech like the HyperLoop even if only because it shows that there are some smart people who can actually see the problem and that they are thinking of ways of solving it.
- jaibot 13y ago
  Autonomous taxis may help - it won't completely eliminate cars, but it can effectively eliminate the need to allocate parking in urban areas (cars will either be transporting people or parked outside of the city). Throw in the safety wins and you have a recipe for massively improved urban spaces.
- rpedroso 13y ago
  There are other problems that need to be solved before public transit can fully replace automobiles. Consider groceries. I can't get two weeks of groceries for two people without a car. Wine bottles get heavy, and stacking bags on my arms risks crushing my eggs. I imagine it's even more complicated for those with larger families. It's also generally cheaper to pick up furniture with Zipcar than it is to have furniture delivered by retailers. I know there are some grocery delivery services cropping up, like Instacart, but they're concentrated in very urban areas. I remember using a grocery delivery service in the early 2000s, and it was a disaster: eggs were broken, liquids were spilled, boxes were crushed, etc. We need to see a lot of improvement in this space.
  - saosebastiao 13y ago
    When you live in a walkable neighborhood, you quickly realize that you don't need to get groceries for two weeks in one trip. I go to the grocery store 4-5 times per week, spending maybe 10-15 minutes max each time.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwmeaway2525 13y ago
      Agreed. Having a store within walking distance makes it easy and fun to go several times a week. Fresh air and exercise is a nice bonus (I don't know why more people don't take advantage of it in my neighborhood).
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Thats a solved problem in many places; it's far more efficient to have deliveries than everyone going in a car to a huge supermarket every week. Home delivery of groceries can be great, I've used it for years without problems, and you can buy your eggs and veg from a local walkable market if you have one (many large cities have weekly markets as well).
  - zacinbusiness 13y ago
    I agree with you here - there are tons of real world problems with almost all public transportation systems. And I can't speak from a lot of experience, but I've spent a lot of time in London and I found that regardless of where I was there was always a walkable market and a walkable supermarket nearby. But, the further you get from the city center then the more difficult it gets. Here we need open-air markets ,farmer's markets, and these sorts of things. Even then, there are issues with transportation. However, I think a bicycle-focused transportation system is a good idea.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Ever use a grocery cart? When the wife and I lived in New York we'd take the train to Costco and load up the baby's stroller (we have one of these: http://uppababy.com/vista/overview http://uppababy.com/vista/overview, lots of storage). It was way more convenient than where we live now, where we have to drive to the Costco and figure out how to shlep stuff from the parking garage to our apartment. Before, we literally strolled from the shelves at Costco straight up to our fridge. It's hard to describe how inconvenient driving life is after living in a walkable city (and in New York, we lived in Westchester, in the burbs 20 miles from Manhattan!). Weekends are filled with strapping the baby into a car seat and driving to the mall to get basic essentials. Forget an ingredient you need for dinner? No running down to the grocery store a block over--30 minutes in the car for you!
maratd 13y ago
> Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? The fact that you're stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish? Oh sure, the city will prosper as a result, but when you start making rules solely for the sake of the majority, throwing basic principles into the garbage bin, you set a precedent. A precedent where anything that's for the greater good passes muster, regardless of anything else. Which seems fine at first. The majority, is the majority of people right? Why not act solely in their interest? But the truth is that we're all part of some minority or other. In some way, everyone's interests contradict the majority in some way. If my grandma lives in the suburbs and it takes 4 hours to see her using public transportation and 30 minutes using a car ... well, you just fucked me over, didn't you? And that's just a mild example.
- mdkess 13y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not (60-40 that you aren't - that's not to belittle you, I think you raised points worth discussing either way) - so in the case that you aren't, a response: You keep cars on the periphery of the city, and have good public transit to and from them. So your 30 minute trip turns into a 20 minute public transit ride to your car (or a 10 minute taxi ride), and then say a 25 minute drive - longer than before, but not 4 hours. So no, you are not "fucked over". And presumably, this comes with an increase in public transit quality. Most cities now are built around cars, but they don't have to be. Also, something like this would have to happen gradually - make dedicated non-private vehicle lanes (buses, taxis, etc), build up public transit, disincentivize cars via taxes and zoning, etc. A place that's perhaps in range of this is Manhattan - most people I know, quite successful, don't own cars - and the ones that do use them to get out of the city on weekends, not for daily transit. It's a place where owning a car is pretty much worse than not - expensive and rare parking, high insurance, congested roads, etc. No joke, I know at least one senior executive here who doesn't have a driver's license because he let it expire. And why do this? Because we should be building safe, healthy, happy, sustainable and affordable cities - something which cars are not contributing too. So ban them outright? Of course not - but maybe phasing out private vehicles in cities over the next 20 years is something worth seriously considering.
- epo 13y ago
a1a 13y ago
The downside is that you will kill the city. I am not sure about larger cities, but smaller cities (i.e. 200k- people) this sure applies. Banning personal cars makes the very majority of people, who lives just outside the city, to go shopping in the large centers (read: Walmart and siblings) placed outside the city. This does not only kill all the stores in the city, but also all coffee shops and what-else that goes with having shoppers running around. But sure, you will indeed have space, clean air, and safety in a ghost-town.
- MAGZine 13y ago
  Nobody who lives outside of the city would ever be expected to give up their vehicle. The corollary, is, however, that this means that people need to live IN the city, and the city needs to NOT be sprawling, and have good transit networks (paths, bike lanes, p. transit)
  - brigade 13y ago
    The point is that there are always going to be people that live outside the city. Period. Banning cars from the city means anyone not living in the city simply won't visit, which for most cities will result in too few people spending money inside the city to sustain the businesses that make living in the city attractive.
    - drabiega 13y ago
      I've lived in at least two cities where, despite cars being allowed, a significant number of people choose to park outside the city at mass transit depots. This is fairly parking-limited, but the wider you cast the mass transit systems the more space you can create for parking while simultaneously reducing the need for it.
    - mjn 13y ago
      Surely they could still visit by train? Why would you want to drive into a city, and deal with the traffic and parking? Copenhagen has deliberately reduced parking in the city center, slimmed roads, and pedestrianized a bit of the core, and people still come, mostly by S-train [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train
agumonkey 13y ago
I wish Google (or anyone else) can find a way to get land to build and experiment alternative lifestyles. Having test-beds like this may help diffuse knowledge in more efficient way.

zacinbusiness 13y ago

The automobile-industrial complex that destroyed public transportation in the US would never let it happen here. Maybe in other countries it's a possibility. Or maybe in the future when the major car manufacturers FINALLY go under. I support visionary tech like the HyperLoop even if only because it shows that there are some smart people who can actually see the problem and that they are thinking of ways of solving it.

jaibot 13y ago
Autonomous taxis may help - it won't completely eliminate cars, but it can effectively eliminate the need to allocate parking in urban areas (cars will either be transporting people or parked outside of the city). Throw in the safety wins and you have a recipe for massively improved urban spaces.
rpedroso 13y ago
There are other problems that need to be solved before public transit can fully replace automobiles. Consider groceries. I can't get two weeks of groceries for two people without a car. Wine bottles get heavy, and stacking bags on my arms risks crushing my eggs. I imagine it's even more complicated for those with larger families. It's also generally cheaper to pick up furniture with Zipcar than it is to have furniture delivered by retailers. I know there are some grocery delivery services cropping up, like Instacart, but they're concentrated in very urban areas. I remember using a grocery delivery service in the early 2000s, and it was a disaster: eggs were broken, liquids were spilled, boxes were crushed, etc. We need to see a lot of improvement in this space.
- saosebastiao 13y ago
  When you live in a walkable neighborhood, you quickly realize that you don't need to get groceries for two weeks in one trip. I go to the grocery store 4-5 times per week, spending maybe 10-15 minutes max each time.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwmeaway2525 13y ago
    Agreed. Having a store within walking distance makes it easy and fun to go several times a week. Fresh air and exercise is a nice bonus (I don't know why more people don't take advantage of it in my neighborhood).
- grey-area 13y ago
  Thats a solved problem in many places; it's far more efficient to have deliveries than everyone going in a car to a huge supermarket every week. Home delivery of groceries can be great, I've used it for years without problems, and you can buy your eggs and veg from a local walkable market if you have one (many large cities have weekly markets as well).
- zacinbusiness 13y ago
  I agree with you here - there are tons of real world problems with almost all public transportation systems. And I can't speak from a lot of experience, but I've spent a lot of time in London and I found that regardless of where I was there was always a walkable market and a walkable supermarket nearby. But, the further you get from the city center then the more difficult it gets. Here we need open-air markets ,farmer's markets, and these sorts of things. Even then, there are issues with transportation. However, I think a bicycle-focused transportation system is a good idea.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Ever use a grocery cart? When the wife and I lived in New York we'd take the train to Costco and load up the baby's stroller (we have one of these: http://uppababy.com/vista/overview http://uppababy.com/vista/overview, lots of storage). It was way more convenient than where we live now, where we have to drive to the Costco and figure out how to shlep stuff from the parking garage to our apartment. Before, we literally strolled from the shelves at Costco straight up to our fridge. It's hard to describe how inconvenient driving life is after living in a walkable city (and in New York, we lived in Westchester, in the burbs 20 miles from Manhattan!). Weekends are filled with strapping the baby into a car seat and driving to the mall to get basic essentials. Forget an ingredient you need for dinner? No running down to the grocery store a block over--30 minutes in the car for you!

maratd 13y ago

> Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? The fact that you're stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish? Oh sure, the city will prosper as a result, but when you start making rules solely for the sake of the majority, throwing basic principles into the garbage bin, you set a precedent. A precedent where anything that's for the greater good passes muster, regardless of anything else. Which seems fine at first. The majority, is the majority of people right? Why not act solely in their interest? But the truth is that we're all part of some minority or other. In some way, everyone's interests contradict the majority in some way. If my grandma lives in the suburbs and it takes 4 hours to see her using public transportation and 30 minutes using a car ... well, you just fucked me over, didn't you? And that's just a mild example.

mdkess 13y ago
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not (60-40 that you aren't - that's not to belittle you, I think you raised points worth discussing either way) - so in the case that you aren't, a response: You keep cars on the periphery of the city, and have good public transit to and from them. So your 30 minute trip turns into a 20 minute public transit ride to your car (or a 10 minute taxi ride), and then say a 25 minute drive - longer than before, but not 4 hours. So no, you are not "fucked over". And presumably, this comes with an increase in public transit quality. Most cities now are built around cars, but they don't have to be. Also, something like this would have to happen gradually - make dedicated non-private vehicle lanes (buses, taxis, etc), build up public transit, disincentivize cars via taxes and zoning, etc. A place that's perhaps in range of this is Manhattan - most people I know, quite successful, don't own cars - and the ones that do use them to get out of the city on weekends, not for daily transit. It's a place where owning a car is pretty much worse than not - expensive and rare parking, high insurance, congested roads, etc. No joke, I know at least one senior executive here who doesn't have a driver's license because he let it expire. And why do this? Because we should be building safe, healthy, happy, sustainable and affordable cities - something which cars are not contributing too. So ban them outright? Of course not - but maybe phasing out private vehicles in cities over the next 20 years is something worth seriously considering.
epo 13y ago

a1a 13y ago

The downside is that you will kill the city. I am not sure about larger cities, but smaller cities (i.e. 200k- people) this sure applies. Banning personal cars makes the very majority of people, who lives just outside the city, to go shopping in the large centers (read: Walmart and siblings) placed outside the city. This does not only kill all the stores in the city, but also all coffee shops and what-else that goes with having shoppers running around. But sure, you will indeed have space, clean air, and safety in a ghost-town.

MAGZine 13y ago
Nobody who lives outside of the city would ever be expected to give up their vehicle. The corollary, is, however, that this means that people need to live IN the city, and the city needs to NOT be sprawling, and have good transit networks (paths, bike lanes, p. transit)
- brigade 13y ago
  The point is that there are always going to be people that live outside the city. Period. Banning cars from the city means anyone not living in the city simply won't visit, which for most cities will result in too few people spending money inside the city to sustain the businesses that make living in the city attractive.
  - drabiega 13y ago
    I've lived in at least two cities where, despite cars being allowed, a significant number of people choose to park outside the city at mass transit depots. This is fairly parking-limited, but the wider you cast the mass transit systems the more space you can create for parking while simultaneously reducing the need for it.
  - mjn 13y ago
    Surely they could still visit by train? Why would you want to drive into a city, and deal with the traffic and parking? Copenhagen has deliberately reduced parking in the city center, slimmed roads, and pedestrianized a bit of the core, and people still come, mostly by S-train [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train

agumonkey 13y ago

I wish Google (or anyone else) can find a way to get land to build and experiment alternative lifestyles. Having test-beds like this may help diffuse knowledge in more efficient way.