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

151–160 of 245 posts

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

#151

Post by abduhl »

opportune wrote: post #115
journalctl wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Something like an Ibeam could, it would just require something closer in size/larger than a helicopter. A 50 foot Ibeam is a bit over 2 tons; a small modern military helicopter would be able to carry that easily. When I say drone I just mean a remotely controlled copter-thing, not specifically a small one. An entire building is less feasible unless it is small, but it could be done using modular components

For building construction that is substantial, a 50 foot wide flange section is probably going to be 1.5 to 4 times heavier than your 4000 lbs, in my experience.

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

#152

Post by 8bitsrule »

Then narrow corridors can open up for tiny, induction-powered, two-person electric 'trams' that move at a walking pace, and follow sensor-detected 'tracks' to the requested destination.

If I need to get somewhere 'downtown' that's 12-40 blocks away, that buses don't go, that's a long walk. I predict that the space and demand for sane transport options will remain.

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

#153

Post by adjkant »

vonmoltke wrote: post #55
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 w…

> When was this ever true in Manhattan

It never was, but the car problem always existed because roads needing to be clear for horses caused the same prohibitive issues of using streets for pedestrians.

> why do you think it would become true just by getting rid of cars?

It wouldn't be just getting rid of cars, its what you do with the space once you get rid of them. Added greenery, protected bike lanes, a lane or two for trains/buses, and you get a ton more pedestrian room. Suddenly people could want to be on the streets of midtown manhattan maybe, save tourist spots.

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

#154

Post by Ericson2314 »

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…

Yes to this. To all the people saying cars were some necessarily step, I disagree. I think the damage cars and sprawl have done to our land use and social structures will take every bit as long to clean up as as the carbon emissions.

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

#155

Post by megaremote »

foobar1962 wrote: post #90
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…

They tried in Melbourne too. A few people stood up and fought to save them, like Robert Risson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Risson

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

#156

Post by megaremote »

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 won't be dangerous, will run clean, be super convenient and unbelievably inexpensive to own and operate.

Oh, they will not use tires? Which leave smalls bits of plastic everywhere they go that get washed into our waterway as micro-plastic.

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

#157

Post by megaremote »

nightsd01 wrote: post #89
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.

They kill 40,000 people every single year in the USA, and injure or disable over 2 million more. And that is not including death from the pollution the cause. And this is just one reason they are the worst invention created by man.

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

#158

Post by adrianN »

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…

Cyclists car ride very closely together quite safely, as all kinds of mass rides show. Relative speeds are close to zero, and cyclists generally have much better spatial awareness than cars.

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

#159

Post by adrianN »

8bitsrule wrote: post #152

Then narrow corridors can open up for tiny, induction-powered, two-person electric 'trams' that move at a walking pace, and follow sensor-detected 'tracks' to the requested destination. If I need to get somewhere 'downtown' that's 12-40 blocks away, that buses don't go, that's a long walk. I predict that the space and demand for sane transport options will remain.

There shouldn't be locations more than a few blocks away that busses don't go to. In Berlin's, London's, or Tokyo's center for example you'd be hard pressed to find a place more than a few minutes walk from public transport.

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

#160

Post by adrianN »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #56
pwinnski wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cities change on decades long timelines. That's enough time for people to adjust.
Post reply on HN