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

31–40 of 245 posts

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

#31

Post by derg »

drstewart wrote: post #10
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…

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.

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

#32

Post by StreamBright »

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…

People who never been to Europe or Asia think that NYC has amazing public transportation.

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

#33

Post by tryitnow »

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…

Not at all. I think it's because HN attracts systems thinkers and

You're looking at it from the perspective of someone who has an immediate problem to solve: how to get from point a to point b. Sure, use a car for that.

A lot of HN readers are looking at transportation not from an individual user with an immediate problem to solve, but rather from the perspective of how do we systematically move people and things efficiently.

From that perspective automobile centric transportation networks make little sense.

Clever mathematics can demonstrate this, but so does common sense.

> What are you supposed to do if you like to take trips to places hundreds of miles away? Ummm, planes, trains, buses work. And sure individual use cars make sense. But this isn't the typical use case for a cars, the typical use case is commuting and other short to mid-range distances.

> What if your job involves visiting many different locations in your city throughout the day? Not a lot of jobs requires this. But for professions that do, they could get a permit that would allow them to use a car.

>I have family that lives in the same city as me and the difference between visiting them via public transport and using a car is 3 hours vs 40 minutes.

Public transportation is horrible in part because there are so many cars on the road. Just think of when you see buses trying to navigate rush hour traffic. Additionally, if more people are forced to take public transportation then that means public transport can support more routes and more frequent stops. Furthermore, if you're driving a car that means you mental bandwidth is pretty much 100% wasted. If you're on public transport, you could conceivably do something like reading or watching a show while traveling, so the times aren't comparable in terms of productive use.

>This is also NYC which is considered a model city for public transport.

Maybe by US standards, definitely not by global standards.

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

#34

Post by sorokod »

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…

Sounds like the bar for model city is set too low.

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

#35

Post by judge2020 »

dudul wrote: post #26
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.

If at 3AM my kid starts feeling very sick, how do I get him to the doctor/hospital in a city where cars are banned? And I'm not trying to be facetious, I think the theory of car-less cities is really appealing, but I honestly don't see how this is a good solution.

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.

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

#36

Post by dang »

mikestew wrote: post #13
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…

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?

Please don't cross into personal attack or post unsubstantive comments here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#37

Post by criddell »

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 the traffic).

I'm one of the people looking forward to the day when I can move further out of the city. I don't care if my commute is an hour or more if I can work or sleep or do other things while the car drives me.

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

#38

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #5

Not all cities can ban cars at this point for multiple reasons. I live for several years in a medium sized wealthy Western European city that's clogged with traffic. Why? Well, rich Europeans don't like living in cities with tall ugly blocks a so they grow outwards by developing cozy low density suburbs. 1) This suburban expansion was possible due to the cheap automobiles that permitted pretty much everyone to move o…

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.

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

#39

Post by choeger »

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 increases the residual traffic.

A city is, by definition, a place where space is at a premium. Banning cars does not change that. And traffic can be solved by offering better alternatives to commuters and managing through-traffic.

Post reply on HN