What happens when a city bans cars from its streets? • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

darksaints wrote: post #65

beefield wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think it's going to be far worse than that. The economics of self driving cars are so biased toward taxi-like usage that the city streets won't just be filled with cars taking up a lot of space. They'll be filled with cars moving at a glacial pace because the streets are all gridlocked by pickups and dropoffs. Every street will look like an airport or elementary school pickup/dropoff zone. And even where there aren…

Who's to say cities won't regulate how many of these cars can be on the road at any time? They already do this for taxis... And I believe some of them put limits on Uber and Lyft, too. Right?

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

#82

Post by criddell » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:25 PM UTC

beefield wrote: post #57

criddell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Couldn't part of that be "fixed" by sprawl? Get the density low enough then all you have to worry about are high capacity corridors across the city.

Right now I live in a suburb of Austin. I rarely go to downtown as all the places I go during the week (work, my kids' school, movie theater, grocery stores, restaurants, doctors) are out here as well and parking is plentiful.

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

#83

Post by bjourne » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:26 PM UTC

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.

Don't we as a society have more pressing concerns than worrying about Mercedes owners ?

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

#84

Post by Merrill » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:31 PM UTC

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…

This is quite possible for Manhattan and probably for other cities. Manhattan once had transportation needs for streets since it was ringed with wharves for seaborne and river commerce, had huge warehouses, railroad yards, factories, and all the facilities of a dynamic manufacturing city.

That has all disappeared and the Manhattan economy is essentially services for residences, entertainment, media, finance, government, hospitals, etc. Production of goods is minor, and distribution and warehousing have mainly moved out, e.g. Fulton fish market.

So Manhattan becomes a forest of towers mainly for residents and offices, with some more specialized buildings for hospitals, conference centers, sports venues, etc. But there is even little need for retailing space, since the distribution centers for online retailers serving Manhattan can be in the outer boroughs or NJ.

In this scenario the transportation system boils down to distribution of food and other goods to the towers and the collection and removal of garbage, plus mass transit intra island and to/from the hinterlands for commuters to the office towers, as well as mass transit to/from airports for the tourism and business travelers.

Manhattan is probably ahead of other cities in becoming a pure center of goods consumption.

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

#85

Post by jandrese » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:31 PM UTC

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…

The idyllic dream of vendors lugging their wares through the subway and city streets every day... When construction companies hire armies of people to walk individual I-beams through the city for every project... Where I get to haul my garbage a dozen blocks to the nearest accessible trash pickup location...

In the end you still need roads. You don't get to convert all of that space into a park even if you ban cars.

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

#86

Post by makerofspoons » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:35 PM UTC

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…

They will run clean, but if carbon is taxed appropriately I'm doubtful they will be cheap enough for the average person to own one since the manufacturing will be far from clean. Most likely people will summon a shared vehicle with an app.

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

#87

Post by vinceguidry » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:40 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #67

vinceguidry wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly did Bogota do? Was pretty car-heavy last two times I was there.

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio Every two to five minutes a bus.

TransMilenio is definitely a nice system, but they built it because they felt it would be cheaper than a traditional metro system, like Medellin's. I definitely preferred Medellin's system over TM. But TM is definitely novel.

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

#88

Post by nightsd01 » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:49 PM UTC

beefield wrote: post #57

criddell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

beefield: a self driving car doesn’t NEED to take up space in a crowded city. It can drive you to work, then you get out, then it can go drive itself to a less crowded area. Then when you’re ready to leave the office it can be there when you’re ready to go.

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

#89

Post by nightsd01 » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC

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…

Cars kill thousands of people a year....in a country of 330 MILLION people? Sorry but the sheer convenience of automobiles greatly outweighs the cost.

This trend to “ban cars” is one of the silliest and dumbest ideas I’ve ever seen. Just because you don’t like cars doesn’t mean they aren’t often the best option for many people. Banning them and pretending they don’t exist doesn’t change that fact.

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

#90

Post by foobar1962 » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

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.

No need to wait that long, the regret is felt already. Sydney ripped up its extensive tram network in the 1950s and 1960s to improve the roads for cars. Remnants of the infrastructure remain: cuttings through rocky, hilly areas in particular. My mother (in her 90s now) talks about taking the tram to Bondi.

Melbourne was smart enough to keep their tram network.