41–50 of 245 posts
I've dreamt about this. I would immediately move to the first US city that bans SOV commuters from a significant portion of the city (let's say, a couple square miles), and establishes superblocks where no vehicles are allowed whatsoever, with the old streets converted to green space. Of course, I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If at 3AM my kid starts feeling very sick, how do I get him to the doctor/hospital in a city where cars are banned? And I'm not trying to be facetious, I think the theory of car-less cities is really appealing, but I honestly don't see how this is a good solution.
Assuming the city is made for people as the parent comment said, you would go to your (very close) train station and get a ride to the nearest hospital or the nearest urgent care.
But after 15 years living a car-free in city apartments, I live in a suburb with roommates now and love it. Our home is bigger, we have a lovely backyard where we can sunbathe at whatever nudity level we're comfortable with, we have a nursery for herbs in it, and we can go outside at night and walk the dog without being catcalled. I'm still less than a 20 minute drive away from most of the things I care about. Car dependence is a minor loss compared to the major gains to my quality of life.
Whenever you look at countries that have great public transportation, they usually end up sacrificing space to achieve that. Homes in Japan are much smaller than in the US for example.
How does this square up?
Not all cities can ban cars at this point for multiple reasons. I live for several years in a medium sized wealthy Western European city that's clogged with traffic. Why? Well, rich Europeans don't like living in cities with tall ugly blocks a so they grow outwards by developing cozy low density suburbs. 1) This suburban expansion was possible due to the cheap automobiles that permitted pretty much everyone to move o…
If Bogota can do it then rich European cities can do it. Think of it this way: whatever the cost to society of cheap and plentiful public transport it will be a small fraction of the cost of car based transportation. Parking, the cost of producing and maintaining the vehicles themselves, the pollution , the accidents, it all really adds up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the USA empty enough that you could still start such a city today?
Are there good city locations still available? (By water, large enough area available, not actively attempting to kill you)
I'm so happy to see this idea starting to get mainstream attention. I predict that in 50-100 years we'll look back on the age of the automobile as one of the biggest mistakes in urban planning. Automobiles are dangerous, kill thousands of people every year, contribute significantly to pollution, and cause health problems by discouraging physical activity. They're expensive, inefficient, and cause more harm than good…
Self-driving cars are going trigger a new wave of automobile growth, at least in the US. They won't be dangerous, will run clean, be super convenient and unbelievably inexpensive to own and operate. They are going to throw gasoline on the sprawl fire. There will certainly be some city centers and other areas closed to car traffic (although probably not most of Manhattan - delivery vehicles are a significant part of t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m guessing so many people on HN are anti-car because they live their lives through their computer and never feel the need to travel outside their immediate area? Not at all! I just rent when I want to go camping. Although, the commuter trains open up a lot of nice options for weekend trips that don't require a car. And that way I can read a book or enjoy the scenery instead of driving. > What if your job involves…
> I don't think this describes many of the cars on the streets. That's part of the reason people favor(ed) cars over train - they effectively accommodate everyone and work for every use case.
Case in point, if you walk around Broome St. between 4:30 and 6:00 PM on a weekday, there are regularly cars (and pedestrians) that miss an entire light cycle because there are too many cars stopped across the intersection in the perpendicular direction. This is a ticketable offence, but police have effectively given up on enforcing basic traffic laws because there are too many cars to reasonably expect them to follow those laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If at 3AM my kid starts feeling very sick, how do I get him to the doctor/hospital in a city where cars are banned? And I'm not trying to be facetious, I think the theory of car-less cities is really appealing, but I honestly don't see how this is a good solution.
Assuming the city is made for people as the parent comment said, you would go to your (very close) train station and get a ride to the nearest hospital or the nearest urgent care.
So this is roughly 60 to 80 minutes, with my crying child, and all assuming a fairly efficient public transportation system. I think that's always the problem when we get pitchforks out to ban cars altogether. I'm all for "greener" cities, for bicycle lanes and all. All policies that try to make it less required to use your car are great, but a blanket ban is idiotic because sometimes, having a car can literally save your life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If at 3AM my kid starts feeling very sick, how do I get him to the doctor/hospital in a city where cars are banned? And I'm not trying to be facetious, I think the theory of car-less cities is really appealing, but I honestly don't see how this is a good solution.
Assuming the city is made for people as the parent comment said, you would go to your (very close) train station and get a ride to the nearest hospital or the nearest urgent care.