51–60 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Busses and delivery trucks are the most noisy and polluting! That doesn’t seem like the panacea you suggest.
On a per-unit basis, sure. There are way more cars than buses or delivery trucks though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because cars have a lot of externalities that negatively affect cities? Pollution, noise, increase in collisions, space required to house and fuel them to name a few. I, and many other people, prefer areas of cities where cars aren't dominant and would like to see more of it
But I’m not sure this is a widely held preference. Seems to be a vocal minority trying to impose their will on others.
Data has shown that businesses are doing well. Some do better, some the same, some worse (like furniture stores, which is a silly thing to have in a city centre anyway).
There's certainly a growing preference for car-free cities. Seems to me like younger people prefer it. Not just because they don't have cars.. I do now, but I really don't like to use it in the city. My wife and I take it to the closest metro station with free parking, and take the metro the rest of the way. Much less stressful.
Seems to me like it is mostly old people who are opposed to banning cars. When they were young, the cities were not as dense, cars not as prevalent, and people didn't care as much about air pollution. They could drive straight into the city centre and park wherever. They don't want to give up on that, even if it means being stuck in traffic and driving around the city centre for half an hour to find a free parking spot. It's an inconvenience they've gotten used to. But the inconveniences of public transportation? Unbearable!
I don't understand this anti-car sentiment from the city liberals. It's already happened here in London and it's getting worse. From 20mph speed limits to blocking roads for bus-only traffic to ultra-low emission zones and congestion charges. It's becoming pretty clear that they don't want people to own their own cars. I'm struggling to see how this is progress.
Walkable cities sounds great until you have luggage to carry or groceries to lug. It’s all about the collective good over that of the individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because cars have a lot of externalities that negatively affect cities? Pollution, noise, increase in collisions, space required to house and fuel them to name a few. I, and many other people, prefer areas of cities where cars aren't dominant and would like to see more of it
But I’m not sure this is a widely held preference. Seems to be a vocal minority trying to impose their will on others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just about anyone who has breathed London air in the last 30 years sees how it is progress. Dirty, smelly and unhealthy that creates a coating on clothes, furniture and windows. That's probably not ideal for lungs. We notice, and hate it every time we visit the relatives down there. "Start breathing crap" kicks in around Hendon.
It is the heavy diesel vehicles that are the problem - i.e. buses and taxis mainly, but also commercial vans and trucks. A universal diesel ban (including public transport) would go a long way to improving air quality IMO. There are viable electric buses, but apparently the way TfL runs it's contracts means it is not commercially viable for bus companies to use EV buses (due to requiring new vehicles on new contracts…
Exempting cabs from the ULEZ is bizarre and unforgivable. It could have been a perfect push to electric.
Imagine if, in high density areas like Manhattan, cars were simply not allowed. Wow. The thought of how pleasant Manhattan would become if only cabs + busses + delivery trucks + ambulances were allowed makes me almost too happy. Would be so awesome.
I don't understand why "cabs" is an allowed exception here. Cabs are like cars, except more expensive, and they drive around without anyone using them for transport looking for business. Why are they superior? I'm picking on this example not because I think that list is meant to be complete or perfectly thought out, but because cabs often seem to get exceptions like this (e.g. in HOV lanes) and I really don't underst…
(Well, they do, but it's out in my neighborhood in queens.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just about anyone who has breathed London air in the last 30 years sees how it is progress. Dirty, smelly and unhealthy that creates a coating on clothes, furniture and windows. That's probably not ideal for lungs. We notice, and hate it every time we visit the relatives down there. "Start breathing crap" kicks in around Hendon.
It is the heavy diesel vehicles that are the problem - i.e. buses and taxis mainly, but also commercial vans and trucks. A universal diesel ban (including public transport) would go a long way to improving air quality IMO. There are viable electric buses, but apparently the way TfL runs it's contracts means it is not commercially viable for bus companies to use EV buses (due to requiring new vehicles on new contracts…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No but the order is important. Making public transport better first would make the transition away from car traffic somewhat smoother. Many cities already successfully pulled this off and this method received far more popular support than just cutting off car traffic and expecting the people to "deal with it" without having good options.
Except that the order usually goes like this: 1. You can't take away personal car access; the public transportation sucks! Make it better, first. 2. You can't improve public transportation; everybody drives so it's not a good cost investment. Get more people to ride transit, first. 3. Goto 1
You collect the returns after you invest. Otherwise almost any initiative would get bogged down into your 3 point loop. When companies build a new HQ they don't tear down the old one first. The "loop" is a fake conundrum.
Imagine if, in high density areas like Manhattan, cars were simply not allowed. Wow. The thought of how pleasant Manhattan would become if only cabs + busses + delivery trucks + ambulances were allowed makes me almost too happy. Would be so awesome.
I don't understand why "cabs" is an allowed exception here. Cabs are like cars, except more expensive, and they drive around without anyone using them for transport looking for business. Why are they superior? I'm picking on this example not because I think that list is meant to be complete or perfectly thought out, but because cabs often seem to get exceptions like this (e.g. in HOV lanes) and I really don't underst…
Imagine if, in high density areas like Manhattan, cars were simply not allowed. Wow. The thought of how pleasant Manhattan would become if only cabs + busses + delivery trucks + ambulances were allowed makes me almost too happy. Would be so awesome.
I don't understand why "cabs" is an allowed exception here. Cabs are like cars, except more expensive, and they drive around without anyone using them for transport looking for business. Why are they superior? I'm picking on this example not because I think that list is meant to be complete or perfectly thought out, but because cabs often seem to get exceptions like this (e.g. in HOV lanes) and I really don't underst…
Ambulances cover the medically injured. Buses cover normal strictly time regimented use.
A simple scenario: my son has been injured at home and I need to immediately get home or to the hospital. The bus may take far too long depending. That's an example of an urgent need for singular transport.