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

131–140 of 245 posts

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

#131

Post by paulgb »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #113
paulgb wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Past a certain population density, cars absolutely do not accomedate everyone . There's simply a finite amount of street space in the city, if everyone chose to drive in Manhattan the streets would cease to function. 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 acro…

No, police don't enforce traffic laws because they all drive in from Long Island and spend their whole day in a car, so they view cars and their drivers as belonging to the same tribe as police, which puts them above the law. Pedestrians and cyclists are "the other" that is capable of actually breaking laws. Put cops on bikes and see how enforcement changes.

As a general concept, I agree, more police would benefit from the perspective of riding a bike.

But the problem I'm describing is not that cops don't care to ticket, it's that enforcing the rule incentivizes the wrong behavior. Traffic is so choked and sporadic that it's hard to know whether you will end up in an intersection, so people would be afraid to enter the intersection entirely, further slowing down traffic.

If you actually enforced the law and ticketed it would just effectively be a stochastic congestion tax. Far better and fairer, in my opinion, to just do the real thing.

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

#132

Post by mymythisisthis »

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…

People travel for about 3hrs before wanting a break. Cars killed all small cities a 3hr drive away from a major city. It's like a nuclear bomb went off in most small cities.

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

#133

Post by jborichevskiy »

derg wrote: post #31
drstewart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're guessing that because you live in a world that's been designed for cars for 50 years, so you naturally see it as the most convenient option -- because it's been designed that way. Even in NYC. Design cities for people first and not automobiles and you'll be asking why anyone would take a car over a train/bus/bike because it's more expensive, takes longer, and is more of a hassle.

Hell, even walking if it's close enough! I moved to a place slightly under a mile from work and walking to and from everyday is blissful and life changing, even accounting for the weather. Being able to safely walk to places (work, shops, points of interests) is so often overlooked, and its super good for you! * *Now if we could curtail cars inside cities it would be even better due to lack of emissions.

The next best commute after a telecommute is a 15-minute walk.

Agreed on emissions, and noise too!

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

#134

Post by Gibbon1 »

mymythisisthis wrote: post #132
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…

People travel for about 3hrs before wanting a break. Cars killed all small cities a 3hr drive away from a major city. It's like a nuclear bomb went off in most small cities.

My GF's dad said where he he lived in the Midwest there used to be a small store at each major cross roads. About every 5 miles.

Cars came and every other one died and there was a store every ten miles.

Then they paved the road and it was every 30 miles.

And then the interstate when in and only the major towns every 60 miles apart survived.

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

#135

Post by enoch_r »

Silhouette wrote: post #127
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…

It is the massive amount of space one car takes[1]. That is a legitimate concern, but the kind of photo you linked to that is often used in advocacy is horribly misleading. In reality, if cyclists rode anything like that close together, there would be accidents all the time because no-one would be able to make turns or travel at different speeds. The general advice to drivers here in the UK is that you should allow a…

1. It seems to me that all the photos are of roughly "maximum congestion" of each vehicle type. So the cars are pictured as if they're stopped at a light or in heavy traffic, while if they we traveling at 50mph I'd hope for much, much more following distance. So yes, the bikes would have somewhat more distance between them if they were moving, but that seems fair to me, as the cars would too.

2. I don't want cars to pass me within a few feet. That doesn't mean I feel unsafe when riding within that same distance of other cyclists. The relative speed is much lower, the mass is much lower, etc. Similarly, I will happily ride much closer to an immobile object (e.g. a curb) than I would like someone to pass me at 40mph. So I think the space taken up by a moving bicycle is larger than the bike itself, sure, but absolutely no way is it anywhere close to the size of a car plus following distance plus safety buffer.

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

#136

Post by jdc »

johnday wrote: post #102
jcranberry wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And you could probably do with only one lane.

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

#137

Post by acdha »

nightsd01 wrote: post #88
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…

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.

That sounds like more vehicle miles in downtown areas which are already severely congested. A large part of the problem is that cars are the least spatially-efficient form of transportation: having them drive more miles at peak times isn’t going to work unless we see huge improvements elsewhere, which seems unlikely.

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

#139

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by Dylan16807 »

journalctl wrote: post #109
opportune wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's a waste of money but it is not at all "100%" out of the question. If you're willing to pay for the extravagance of air travel, you can make it happen. There are many many people and organizations capable of paying it.
Post reply on HN