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

What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 245 posts

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#51

Post by bluGill »

scarejunba wrote: post #15
jacquesm wrote: post #11

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)

A good city location is right next to an existing city. Existing cities have everything someone moving to your city might want, so just locate next to them.

There are plenty of locations with the characteristics you name all over the world. You can start a city half way between Omaha and Kansas City if you want - nobody will home even though it meets all your requirements.

Major cities develop near shipping when there is a good port location (either river or sea), and there is a rural population to support the city. Those locations are not only already taken, but with better inland shipping many of them are not nearly as important for shipping as they used to be and exist because they are too large to die from other industry that moved in since.

Major cities can also develop when there is a natural resource nearby. It is possible someone will discover a large mineral deposit and open a mine in the middle on nowhere thus requiring a city to develop to serve it. If the city becomes large enough it could outlast the mine. Though more likely the city is already a small town, and will not grow to be large enough (from 2000 to 20000 isn't enough to sustain a city despite 10x growth)

In short, the next large stand alone city will not be on earth. Mars maybe?

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#52

Post by pwinnski »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #38
jacquesm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, but there's no way you can convince Herr Schmidt who lives in the suburbs and just bought a 80.000 Euro Mercedes to take the bus to the city. At least the inner city center is car free on some shopping streets so we got that.

Generally it start with charging a high daily congestion fee to drive into the city center. From there you expand the area. An 80k car that costs another 2-3k per year to drive into the city center, and maybe another 2-3k per year to park, at some point most people find it worthwhile to save the car for driving outside the city center.

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#53

Post by dudul »

derg wrote: post #42
judge2020 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also assuming vital things like ambulances are cheap and or free instead of hundreds (or thousands) of dollars means it is a lot more viable to call for one and a mostly car-free city means quicker transport in said vehicle.

Sure, why stop at completely remodeling hundreds of years of urbanism, let's just also fix up the complete mess that is the US health care system while we're at it :)

That being said, yes I agree. And I would not have made the same comment if I was still living in Europe where calling an ambulance is virtually free (I did it a couple of times).

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#54

Post by bluGill »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #38
jacquesm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, but there's no way you can convince Herr Schmidt who lives in the suburbs and just bought a 80.000 Euro Mercedes to take the bus to the city. At least the inner city center is car free on some shopping streets so we got that.

But Herr Schmidt lives next to a more frugal neighbor who doesn't car about the nice car and will take transit, currently the neighbor is driving a Toyota or some such practical car and wouldn't care in the least if he didn't have to drive again.

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#55

Post by vonmoltke »

brenden2 wrote: post #3

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…

> 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.

I think that's a very hyperbolic prediction. I think elevating the automobile to the detriment of other forms of transportation will be viewed as a mistake, but the automobile itself is no more a mistake than the horse and carriage were.

> My dream is that one day most streets in Manhattan will be closed to car traffic and replaced with green space full of trees, flowers, children playing, and usable public space.

When was this ever true in Manhattan, and why do you think it would become true just by getting rid of cars? Crowded city streets predate cars by centuries.

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#56

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

pwinnski wrote: post #52
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but there's no way you can convince Herr Schmidt who lives in the suburbs and just bought a 80.000 Euro Mercedes to take the bus to the city. At least the inner city center is car free on some shopping streets so we got that.

Generally it start with charging a high daily congestion fee to drive into the city center. From there you expand the area. An 80k car that costs another 2-3k per year to drive into the city center, and maybe another 2-3k per year to park, at some point most people find it worthwhile to save the car for driving outside the city center.

Can't do that. The low and middle class here are also dependent on their banged up hatckbacks to get to work as they live very far from their jobs. If you make parking super expensive it's gonna hurt the Volkswagen man first and way harder than the Mercedes man.

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#57

Post by beefield »

criddell wrote: post #37
brenden2 wrote: post #3

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…

> 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.

My guess is that you are wrong. At least what comes to driving in cities. As the (current) main problem of cars in cities is not accidents, emissions, lack of convenience or even cost. It is the massive amount of space one car takes[1]. And self driving tech is not going to do anything to solve that. If not the opposite, when empty cars are driving around looking for a parking spot.

[1] https://permaculturenews.org/images/bus_car_bike_compare.jpg

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#58

Post by pwinnski »

dudul wrote: post #48
judge2020 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I would have to walk like what? 15 minutes with my kid who is crying, then wait another 10 to 15 minutes for a train to show up, then wait on the train for 15 to 20 minutes, then walk from the station to the hospital for maybe 5 to 10 minutes. 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 pi…

There are many human-oriented cities around the world in which mass-transit reigns, and they manage to make life work. I've been in Hong Kong a lot, and I'm not sure I can pick two points in Hong Kong that are 80 minutes apart from each other. I mean, maybe getting to the New Territories from Sai Wan Ho or something, but they have their own closer hospitals, so...

It's hard to explain dry land to a fish, but life without cars is possible.

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#59

Post by mikestew »

bananabiscuit wrote: post #17
mikestew wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you supposed to do if you like to take trips to places hundreds of miles away? Here we are, a crowd of folks that solve hard software and hardware problems everyday, and this is all it takes to stump you?

Yeah it does stump me. mass transit doesn’t cover this case 99% of the time. Sometimes there is a greyhound bus line or Amtrak that will get you where you need to go, but even in the best case driving will usually get you there faster and cheaper.

but even in the best case driving will usually get you there faster and cheaper.

Ah, I see the disconnect. Then just drive. Whether one you own, rented, Zipcar. I don't see where it is proposed that you can't drive the kids to Yosemite. You just can't drive them to downtown, where there's a ton of buses, trains, or what have you, and a car isn't needed and there's too damned many cars already. I own a car. Several, in fact. And an RV. But I don't drive any of them to downtown Seattle. I rarely drive any of them the 7 miles to work.

Re: What happens when a city bans cars from its streets?

#60

Post by close04 »

choeger wrote: post #39

Does anyone really think children will play on the streets when buses, trams, bicycles, emergency services, garbage trucks, and delivery vans still need that space? Does anyone really believe the "empty" parking lots will become public space? Consider two things: First, every apartment block in a city needs access by road for the emergency services. Second, a more livable city will attract more citizens. This in turn…

The smaller streets can still be mostly empty, short of the occasional emergency vehicle. I still call that a win.
Post reply on HN