5 ms·

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 car

by 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
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  Note that one doesn't actually need to "live in the city" to have good transit access, if appropriate development patterns are followed, with development and population generally clustered around transit nodes and routes. This is the pattern used by traditional streetcar suburbs. See e.g. Tokyo and environs for a modern example. Transit is generally practical because of density, but density can take many more forms than just a single dense city core. The more general point is that development patterns and transit networks are intimately intertwined. Modern American development is often predicated on personal automobile usage, and so it's not surprising it works pretty badly when you take than away. But there are other combinations of transit and development patterns which may be much better overall.
grey-area 13y ago
Many countries have usable public transport (buses, trains, metro, trams, taxis). London already imposes a punitive levy on private cars within the city, the result is a slight reduction in car traffic and no appreciable effect on shopping or pedestrian traffic. It would be very interesting to find out what a complete ban, or a much higher levy, would do to the city, but I doubt very much it would kill it. Do you have an example not in the us where this has been tried? As long as there are other ways to get around, a city does not need cars, in fact cars are a negative for most denizens.

by a1a 13y ago

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
snogglethorpe 13y ago
Note that one doesn't actually need to "live in the city" to have good transit access, if appropriate development patterns are followed, with development and population generally clustered around transit nodes and routes. This is the pattern used by traditional streetcar suburbs. See e.g. Tokyo and environs for a modern example. Transit is generally practical because of density, but density can take many more forms than just a single dense city core. The more general point is that development patterns and transit networks are intimately intertwined. Modern American development is often predicated on personal automobile usage, and so it's not surprising it works pretty badly when you take than away. But there are other combinations of transit and development patterns which may be much better overall.

grey-area 13y ago

Many countries have usable public transport (buses, trains, metro, trams, taxis). London already imposes a punitive levy on private cars within the city, the result is a slight reduction in car traffic and no appreciable effect on shopping or pedestrian traffic. It would be very interesting to find out what a complete ban, or a much higher levy, would do to the city, but I doubt very much it would kill it. Do you have an example not in the us where this has been tried? As long as there are other ways to get around, a city does not need cars, in fact cars are a negative for most denizens.