Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oslo made its city center basically car-free

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 505 posts

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#421

Post by [deleted] »

themagician wrote: post #32
umvi wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose getting around quickly in car-free city centers? Electric scooter services? I was in NYC the other day, and it was like 1 am and we were several blocks northwest of Times' Square, it was freezing and raining and public transportation was on late night service which would have required 20+ minutes of waiting around shivering for a bus, or a long-ish walk to the nearest subway station and another lon…

Walking. That’s how you get around quickly. It’s quicker to walk in downtown SF than take a car for a good portion of the day. Also maybe you don’t need to get around so quickly. That’s kind of my point about how much damage the car has done to society.

[deleted]

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#422

Post by mises »

I keep running into this assumption that everybody loves somewhere with a pleasant climate. Or at least somewhere cool. In summer, many Southern cities are extremely hot and humid; you couldn't pay most people enough to walk or bike. We like our AC, thank you very much. Maybe better public transit would help, but we don't even like walking the last mile.

It's a good plan, but this is the "San Francisco Bubble": assuming what works for you works for everyone else. Another good example is electric scooters.

Many people live in situations where, if they walked or biked, even for the last mile, they would have to shower literally every time they moved a mile or more. I also read a very astute comment pointing out that biking is not good for hauling kids, moving groceries, etc. The best solution for kids is probably a stroller, whic means now you have to walk rather than bike.

Lastly, speed. Outside of peak traffic, no comparison. I lived in Houston for a while; it could take an hour and a half to drive from one end of the city to the other in usual traffic. Walking or biking, it would probably be something like six and twelve, respectively. Only one city has been truly constrained; NYC. You can't just make everybody move into a little urban core and expect they won't leave. Can't fit that many people.

For reference, Oslo has population 600k. Greater Houston Area is estimated to top 10m by 2040.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#423

Post by [deleted] »

dbingham wrote: post #269
umvi wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose getting around quickly in car-free city centers? Electric scooter services? I was in NYC the other day, and it was like 1 am and we were several blocks northwest of Times' Square, it was freezing and raining and public transportation was on late night service which would have required 20+ minutes of waiting around shivering for a bus, or a long-ish walk to the nearest subway station and another lon…

Your post is run through with faulty assumptions. You're assuming public transit would remain in its current under funded and under performing state in a world where we ban cars and can, thus, stop paying to maintain car infrastructure. In a world where everyone relies on public transit, there's that much more incentive to ensure it remains high functioning.

[deleted]

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#424

Post by Rapzid »

themagician wrote: post #45
karmelapple wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if research exists for this, but I wonder how much of the influence of people moving from rural or suburban areas in the USA to urban areas in the USA contributes to additional cars in US cities. I grew up in a suburban area, and even though I live in a dense city now, having a car still seems mandatory to me somewhere deep in my brain, even though I know I could now get by with the occasional zipcar. Su…

It’s a huge factor contributing to income inequality as well. In a car free city you’d have to have affordable housing because otherwise you’d have no service people, since they wouldn’t be able to commute.

Can you give a few examples?

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#425

Post by adrianN »

Xylakant wrote: post #170
Buldak wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is important to consider, but even if anti-car policies inadvertently exclude some people, I'd push back against the presumption that they are more exclusionary than pro-car policies. They might still represent an improvement over the status quo in this regard. For instance, anti-car advocates often argue that policies which effectively require people to buy and maintain cars to participate in society are exclus…

For germany, there's a study that estimates that up to 30% of a flats rent in densely populated areas is directly or indirectly caused by car-centric planning. And if I just go round the block and estimate how much space is taken by (toll-free) parking and car lanes, I can quite well imagine that this number might be on the high side, but not entirely unfounded. Just half a block from my flat is a road that is double…

A single parking spot is roughly equivalent to a large room in a flat. Parking spots are about 10m^2 each. Buildings have between three and five stories. At the relatively cheap rent prices here in Berlin, a parking spot should cost its user about 400€/month.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#426

Post by [deleted] »

bbrian wrote: post #395
haberman wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, cars comprise 90% of land-based passenger miles traveled. [1] In Europe, it's 80-90% in most countries. [2] So if we in the US are "over-reliant" on cars, Europe is not far behind. Considering that cars are the preferred method of transport for the vast majority of people, you could just as well say that "people who want to leave the house are the villains." What really bothers me about the Urbanist attitu…

US pedestrian deaths are at a 25 year high. Be ashamed. Or don't take the car for short journeys. Be part of a positive change. Or don't take a job that requires long commutes. People want to live in location A and want a better job in location B and accept the fact they increase the risk of death in others, directly and through pollution, as a reasonable trade-off for their comfort. I don't drive (34, Sacramento). M…

[deleted]

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#427

Post by rayiner »

apendleton wrote: post #156
rayiner wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly agree. Also let's end welfare for upper middle class commuters by ending subsidies for rail transit. Here in D.C., taxpayers subsidize Metro commuters, who are typically white collar and make more than the average taxpayer in DC/MD/VA. Why would you expect anything else, given the stratospheric price of housing near Metro stations? Low-income people take the bus. That's what we should subsidize.

Both rail and bus are heavily subsidized -- buses come nowhere close to paying for either their operating or capital expenses with fare revenue. It is probably true that if you broke down the WMATA budget and looked at the degree of subsidy per passenger mile on rail vs. bus, you'd get a higher number for rail than bus, but it's tricky to do an apples-to-apples comparison because the rail figure will include the cost…

That might be a relevant point in some cities, mainly New York. But in the DC metro area, only a tiny fraction of commuters take rail to begin with, in part because Metro is geared to getting people in and out of DC while most jobs in the area are outside DC. I’ve always found it very odd that folks who work ordinary jobs in the suburbs subsidize the relatively high income professionals that work in DC and can afford to live near a Metro stop.

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#428

Post by [deleted] »

baddox wrote: post #231
clairity wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as a multimodal traveler, i generally agree with most of the changes that oslo implemented, but let's not make cars villians. fast personal, point-to-point, at-hand, energy-dense transporation is great! and so is having grass and trees with kids and dogs playing. but there's no need to pit them against each other. so besides leaving some low capacity, slow roads above ground, let's put a few high capacity, fast roads…

> fast personal, point-to-point, at-hand, energy-dense transporation is great! and so is having grass and trees with kids and dogs playing. but there's no need to pit them against each other. Of course. The problem is externalities. If the people enjoying their energy-dense personal transportation aren't incurring the full costs of that transportation, then 1) there will be probably way more of it than there would be…

[deleted]

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#429

Post by [deleted] »

Rapzid wrote: post #424
themagician wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a huge factor contributing to income inequality as well. In a car free city you’d have to have affordable housing because otherwise you’d have no service people, since they wouldn’t be able to commute.

Can you give a few examples?

[deleted]

Re: Oslo made its city center basically car-free

#430

Post by throwaway234231 »

anoncoward111 wrote: post #381
mLuby wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be reasonable to spot-check driver's license (which they necessarily have for driving said vehicle). Should be easy enough to verify against the handicap permit.

If I was handicapped and people started gestapo'ing me to make sure I am who I am.... man sometimes you just have to let externalities happen in the name of not screwing over the 99% of people who do it by the book

Where I live, the light rail isn't access controlled, so they send officers around randomly to verify that everyone on the train have a valid pass (and ticket those who don't). Nobody really complains about it or thinks it's invasive.

I don't see how this would be any different.

Post reply on HN