Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

greeneuropeanjournal.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 994 posts

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#491

Post by ses1984 »

Saline9515 wrote: post #415
darkamaul wrote: post #232

While the current Paris administration has its detractors, its policies, removing surface parking, expanding bike lanes, and lowering speed limits, have done tremendous good for air quality (see the Airparif study for details in [0]). Paris may not yet be at Amsterdam’s scale, but only 5 % of daily trips in the city are made by car. It’s staggering that roughly 50 % of public space is allocated to cars [1], despite t…

It's a reason among others, but this bike-centric policy (pedestrians nor public transport are the priority) led to an exodus of families [0]. I am among them, as I realized pretty quickly that it's a real pain to move around, buy groceries, go to the doctor, and so on with very young children in Paris, especially if you don't own a car. And now you have to deal with the uncivil behavior of the cyclists, moreover. It…

There are loads of factors at play, to lay the blame of this demographic trend solely on bike-centric policy is, if I’m being very very generous, lazy. Since it’s the telegraph, about a foreign city, I would assume it’s disingenuous.

The article doesn’t even call out bike centric policies:

> “It is the result of a quarter-century of policies that have made life harder for families and the middle class. Construction work, difficult access to nurseries, skyrocketing rents, and social housing shortages have pushed Parisians to the suburbs or provinces.”

The “worst” callout in the article is triple parking fees for SUVs.

Oh.

Anyway.

It looks like there are loads of factors at play and I wouldn’t trust assigning blame to just one, especially when your supporting article only kinda sorta touches on that factor.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#492

Post by c22 »

deltarholamda wrote: post #225
powvans wrote: post #10

This is really amazing to see trending on HN. I spent a couple days in Pontevedra this summer while walking the Camino de Santiago. It was absolutely delightful and what I experienced aligns with the article. The old town was filled with wide streets almost exclusively for walking, cafes and restaurants that sprawled into plazas, and people young and old enjoying the car free public space. It was one of the first sto…

>Where it exists you can see that there is tremendous demand for it. Everybody loves public transit until they get panhandled for the jillionth time, or they witness (or experience) violence, or some other anti-social behavior sours the whole thing. I spent some time in NYC during the Giuliani years, after the city did a lot of work cleaning it all up: stopping turnstile jumpers, removing graffiti, more police, etc.…

Are you kidding? I see antisocial, dangerous, and violent behaviors from other people driving cars every single day...

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#493

Post by 1718627440 »

alerighi wrote: post #122

The problem that car solved years ago, is the following: you can develop a city without cars up to a point where the distance that you have to move to get to your work, or the supermarket, the hospital, etc is at max some km, let's say not more than 10/20. That has the consequence that all people wants to live in the city center, and not in peripherals areas. This has the consequence of making the cost of an house (o…

When this is the only reason, trains are far superior. Show me the country where I can drive 120km/h / 75mph through the city center.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#494

Post by mytailorisrich »

fayten wrote: post #128
mytailorisrich wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public transport gives much better ROI for more people That's a bold claim without data.

This depends on how you define ROI. Car infrastructure and lack of density reduces tax revenue for cities and strains infrastructure. There are other human benefits to reducing car traffic and use in favor of public transportation: * Reduces air pollution * Noise pollution * Allows a focus on human centric urban planning * Allows for higher density commercial and residential increasing tax revenue * Reduces pedestria…

Thanks for this useful comment, too rare in this discussion unfortunately.

One thing to bear in mind is that roads are required no matter what, so the question is one of size, really. In general public transport shines and is definitely worthwhile in dense urban environments where cars-only infrastructure could not cope or would be completely disproportionate. As density drops usefulness and viability drop, too.

> In the end there is a balance between public transportation and car dependency and right now the scales are leaning too much in favor of cars.

Not sure that is the case in Europe. In Europe this tends to be driven by militant groups that want to ban cars for dogmatic reasons and they create real problems for people and businesses in the process.

A pragmatic approach is indeed to have a good balance and to accept that cars are both wanted and useful, and needed in many cases.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#495

Post by cycomanic »

seper8 wrote: post #248
komali2 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have kids? I don't think so (correct me if I'm wrong). Car is absolutely essential for driving around small kids no matter the urban density. I hear this all the time yet right now am traveling in Amsterdam and see many parents trucking their kids around in bicycles without issue. Actually I remember seeing this in SF as well, and in Taiwan and Japan I see incredibly young children riding public transit on t…

Most of these bike moms/dads still have a car at home.

How do you know? I know many parents who move their kids around in bikes (many of those live in cities with less than 200k people) who specifically opted not own cars.

I particular I know that many schools in Germany have car free zones around them due to the problems that car drop offs cause (there is nothing worse as a rushed parent in an SUV dropping their kids off at school. The number of near misses I have seen and experienced makes we want to globally forbid cars within 2 km of a school).

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#496

Post by zozbot234 »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #439

Something I said a couple days ago: > It's not an either-or. You can have streets which are car-friendly, bike-friendly, and pedestrian-friendly at the same time. Just look at the Dutch, they've been doing it for years. That is until recently in some big cities, though, where some less knowledgeable politicians have also adopted this false populist either-car-or-bike concept. Though the traditional principle still ap…

You can have streets which are car-friendly (for exceptional or emergency purposes where you need the car) by getting rid of all frivolous car use. There's no feasible alternative, because congestion always destroys car-friendliness except in very sparsely populated areas. And you can only eliminate that congestion by promoting more scalable alternatives to the use of private motor vehicles.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#497

Post by oldsecondhand »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #77
abraxas wrote: post #49

North Americans visiting Europe often grapple with why they enjoy European cities more than North American ones. It's often perceived as an architecture issue ("Europe has historical buildings that we don't have") but very few notice that the main difference is the urban scale and the resulting walkability. The Netherlands has plenty of modernist and even brutalist architecture yet every city there is a pretty nice p…

Important to note is how most cities have two (or more) zones; the old inner city for leisure, tourism, shopping and going out, the suburban areas around it where most people live, and industrial / office building estates where most people work. Amsterdam is a great example [0] and well-known for a lot of tourists, with the city center being the tourism hub, the zones around it for living, west/northwest for industry…

American cities lack medium density mixed commercial-residential areas.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#498

Post by [deleted] »

deltarholamda wrote: post #450
Fricken wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I see your wife and kids in trouble I'll intervene, don't worry. Of course, motor vehicle crashes are the second biggest killer of kids after guns. I don't know where homeless people sit on the threat scale but it's a negligibly small amount.

That's a non-answer, so I assume that's a "no" on the wife, kids, and/or letting them pedal through tent city. In any event, homeless people are low on the threat scale because people generally avoid riding a Schwinn through homeless encampments, which should be perfectly obvious but I guess not.

[deleted]

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#499

Post by zozbot234 »

Saline9515 wrote: post #447
solarexplorer wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on the city/quarter where you live. I live in the center of Barcelona and had no problems with two small kids at all. Supermarkets, real farmer's markets, hospitals, pharmacies, schools, etc are all within 10min walking distance. I work from home, but I could walk to the office it I wanted to. I don't have to leave the city at all. Eventually I gave in and bought a car, not because it was necessary…

Yeah, if you live in the most expensive part of the town, which is often the epicenter, it may be ok. However, not everyone can afford this, or justify the expense, especially since you are pitted against childless couples that don't have to support children financially. Also, the presence of bikes on the sidewalk makes it hostile for vulnerable pedestrians, and generally turn a pleasant experience (walking in a city…

If bikes (not cars) are making a city "hostile to vulnerable pedestrians", that seems like a very good problem to have compared to the average car-centric city.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#500

Post by deltarholamda »

rcpt wrote: post #480
deltarholamda wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Where it exists you can see that there is tremendous demand for it. Everybody loves public transit until they get panhandled for the jillionth time, or they witness (or experience) violence, or some other anti-social behavior sours the whole thing. I spent some time in NYC during the Giuliani years, after the city did a lot of work cleaning it all up: stopping turnstile jumpers, removing graffiti, more police, etc.…

> Everybody loves public transit until they get panhandled for the jillionth time OP is right. The demand is huge and supply is tiny. Even with those scary panhandlers people are jamming onto public transport (when it actually exists) and going far far out of their way to experience walkable areas. > zero other options if I want to live where crime is low and the schools aren't dysfunctional Crime in NYC is exceeding…

>Why don't you simply move to Chelsea or the Upper West Side?

Because I'm not in the top 0.1%.

"Why don't you just move into a $2-5 million dollar home?" is an astonishing take.

Post reply on HN