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

101–110 of 245 posts

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

#101

Post by opportune »

jandrese wrote: post #85
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.

I agree we will still need roads in the foreseeable future, probably the rest of our lifetimes, but it’s not out of the question for materials to dropped into a construction site using drones. Maybe even entire prefabbed buildings or segments of buildings

There are significant benefits to this approach other than not having to use roads, but of course the tech isn’t there yet

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

#102

Post by johnday »

jcranberry wrote: post #99
dan_quixote wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, just watch how construction happens in the central district of any European city. It's not as simple as just backing a flatbed up to the door, but they get by just fine.

They do, with roads. The point GP was making that it's not feasible to convert roads into bowers.

On the other hand, it would be feasible to convert roads into normally-pedestrianised areas, which you need a permit or a one-day pass to drive through.

There are numerous city centres in the UK which use this method. The central portion of Canterbury, Kent, is a great example.

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

#103

Post by swebs »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #20
bananabiscuit wrote: post #7

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? What are you supposed to do if you like to take trips to places hundreds of miles away? What if your job involves visiting many different locations in your city throughout the day? I have family that lives in the same city as me and the difference between…

> This is also NYC which is considered a model city for public transport. It is? By who? NYC has probably the best public transportation in the US, it's true. But the US is known for generally having awful public transportation. > What are you supposed to do if you like to take trips to places hundreds of miles away? What if your job involves visiting many different locations in your city throughout the day? It depen…

>NYC has probably the best public transportation in the US

I think that title goes to Boston. NYC has always been unreliable and grimy to me.

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

#104

Post by zpallin »

jandrese wrote: post #85
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.

That's not at all necessary. Redesigning roadways into pedestrian areas does not have to exclude utility and construction equipment, just traffic.

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

#105

Post by octorian »

pcwalton wrote: post #91
rayiner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and almost everywhere else in the US has even worse transport, and it costs us five times as much to build it as Europe. Which is why the idea of banning cars in the US pretty much anywhere outside of Manhattan and maybe a few downtown roads is fanciful.

> Which is why the idea of banning cars in the US pretty much anywhere outside of Manhattan and maybe a few downtown roads is fanciful. Perhaps the most compelling reason to do so is safety. For example, it's universally agreed that banning cars from Market St., which was approved yesterday here in San Francisco, is going to save many lives over the years. It is a very dangerous street and was never designed for the…

Good 'ole San Francisco... A city that's such a pain in the arse to get in and out of by car that I basically avoid going there at all. I just wish that getting in and out of SF by public transit wasn't a 2+ hour adventure (1.5hr if you're lucky to match an express schedule), when its less than an hour of drive time.

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

#106

Post by swebs »

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.

If you're going from city to city, Megabus has been great for me.

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

#107

Post by bcrosby95 »

criddell wrote: post #97
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also like to point out skepticism to "unbelievably inexpensive to own". To operate, sure. But to own? The tech in these cars alone could easily be $100k. And there's no reason to think society will allow you to operate a car that's 99.999% safe when you could be operating a car that's proven to be 99.99999%. As time goes by, more 9s will keep accruing. And the extra 9s will keep the tech costing the same or more…

Eventually they will be cheap. How much would you spend for a computer with the processing power of an iPhone in 1990? Thirty years from now that $100k tech package will be $500 and it will be orders of magnitude better. When cars stop colliding with each other, safety standards can be relaxed. Get rid of heavy bumpers and structures added to withstand 50 mph offset crashes. The cars become very light weight which le…

Would you also say we have a very high tolerance for danger when it comes to poisons and heights? Because your statement appears pretty hyperbolic to me when comparing some of the ways people die in the US.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

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

#108

Post by xyzzyz »

criddell wrote: post #97
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also like to point out skepticism to "unbelievably inexpensive to own". To operate, sure. But to own? The tech in these cars alone could easily be $100k. And there's no reason to think society will allow you to operate a car that's 99.999% safe when you could be operating a car that's proven to be 99.99999%. As time goes by, more 9s will keep accruing. And the extra 9s will keep the tech costing the same or more…

Eventually they will be cheap. How much would you spend for a computer with the processing power of an iPhone in 1990? Thirty years from now that $100k tech package will be $500 and it will be orders of magnitude better. When cars stop colliding with each other, safety standards can be relaxed. Get rid of heavy bumpers and structures added to withstand 50 mph offset crashes. The cars become very light weight which le…

> When cars stop colliding with each other, safety standards can be relaxed. Get rid of heavy bumpers and structures added to withstand 50 mph offset crashes. The cars become very light weight which lets you decrease the size of the drivetrain and batteries. You end up with something closer to a fancy golf cart than a Camry and they will cost less than $10k.

A new Camry already most likely costs less than $10k to manufacture. Bumpers and frame aren’t expensive to manufacture, precision components are. The material and manufacturing savings you suggest would reduce the sticker price by $1-2k at best.

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

#109

Post by journalctl »

opportune wrote: post #101
jandrese wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree we will still need roads in the foreseeable future, probably the rest of our lifetimes, but it’s not out of the question for materials to dropped into a construction site using drones. Maybe even entire prefabbed buildings or segments of buildings There are significant benefits to this approach other than not having to use roads, but of course the tech isn’t there yet

I mean this really nicely: it is 100% out of the question for entire buildings or even just materials to be dropped into a construction site with drones. Also, how are you going to get large digging equipment in? Or things like wrecking balls?

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

#110

Post by fragmede »

aeharding wrote: post #4

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.

Attitudes are changing, so it could still happen in your lifetime. San Francisco just approved the Better Market Street Project, which isn't a ban on SOV commuters, but will heavily restrict them, prohibiting them from driving on Market Street itself, allowing them only to cross. (Taxi's will still be allowed, though not Uber/Lyft.)

This project would never have gotten off the drawing board 30 years ago. That it managed to pass is a testament to how much things are changing.

Post reply on HN