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

71–80 of 245 posts

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

#71

Post by damnyou »

pwinnski wrote: post #58
dudul wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I would have to walk like what? 15 minutes with my kid who is crying, then wait another 10 to 15 minutes for a train to show up, then wait on the train for 15 to 20 minutes, then walk from the station to the hospital for maybe 5 to 10 minutes. So this is roughly 60 to 80 minutes, with my crying child, and all assuming a fairly efficient public transportation system. I think that's always the problem when we get pi…

There are many human-oriented cities around the world in which mass-transit reigns, and they manage to make life work. I've been in Hong Kong a lot, and I'm not sure I can pick two points in Hong Kong that are 80 minutes apart from each other. I mean, maybe getting to the New Territories from Sai Wan Ho or something, but they have their own closer hospitals, so... It's hard to explain dry land to a fish, but life wit…

I loved Hong Kong when I visited it but I would never want to live there. My quality of life in the US is much higher.

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

#72

Post by Symbiote »

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.

Obviously in a taxi or ambulance, depending on the severity.

We are allowed to make reasonable exceptions.

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

#73

Post by yohannparis »

damnyou wrote: post #43

So I totally support improving public transit, reducing the space allotted for cars, etc etc. But after 15 years living a car-free in city apartments, I live in a suburb with roommates now and love it . Our home is bigger, we have a lovely backyard where we can sunbathe at whatever nudity level we're comfortable with, we have a nursery for herbs in it, and we can go outside at night and walk the dog without being cat…

The article mention cities, you are talking about suburbs. Nobody wants to remove cars from the suburbs because it is the backbone of it. Remove the cars => no more suburbs.

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

#74

Post by AnimalMuppet »

scarejunba wrote: post #15
jacquesm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the USA empty enough that you could still start such a city today?

Are there good city locations still available? (By water, large enough area available, not actively attempting to kill you)

Why "by water"?

I mean, yes, the city needs a water supply. It doesn't need ocean shipping, though, or even barge shipping.

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

#75

Post by criddell »

brenden2 wrote: post #46
criddell wrote: post #37

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. 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…

Small deliveries are done by bicycle these days in Manhattan. Large items, like furniture, could be delivered using small electric trucks with special permits for this purpose.

I was thinking more about the fleet of Sysco, UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc... trucks.

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

#76

Post by bluGill »

dudul wrote: post #48
judge2020 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So I would have to walk like what? 15 minutes with my kid who is crying, then wait another 10 to 15 minutes for a train to show up, then wait on the train for 15 to 20 minutes, then walk from the station to the hospital for maybe 5 to 10 minutes. So this is roughly 60 to 80 minutes, with my crying child, and all assuming a fairly efficient public transportation system. I think that's always the problem when we get pi…

If cars are banned everybody will seek the alternates: that means the walk to the train is much less than 15 minutes (unless you are a farmer - but farmers already have a 30 minute drive to the nearest hospital, and over an hour to a good one), and the train will come more often than every 15 minutes even at 3am. The train will also stop in the hospital, so that walk is less.

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

#77

Post by yohannparis »

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.

Exactly! Go to Switzerland, where it is common to take the Train + Postal bus to leave the city and hiking in the mountain.

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

#78

Post by damnyou »

yohannparis wrote: post #73
damnyou wrote: post #43

So I totally support improving public transit, reducing the space allotted for cars, etc etc. But after 15 years living a car-free in city apartments, I live in a suburb with roommates now and love it . Our home is bigger, we have a lovely backyard where we can sunbathe at whatever nudity level we're comfortable with, we have a nursery for herbs in it, and we can go outside at night and walk the dog without being cat…

The article mention cities, you are talking about suburbs. Nobody wants to remove cars from the suburbs because it is the backbone of it. Remove the cars => no more suburbs.

Yes, but less auto dependence means less suburbs right? "Sprawl" is criticized a lot. A transit oriented suburb would be like Japan. The houses would be less big, there would be less space to suspend the normal rules of society around things like nudity, and so on.

I get why cities are great, but suburb living leads to a very different — and for me vastly better — quality of life.

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

#79

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

beefield wrote: post #57
criddell wrote: post #37

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. 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…

> 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…

I'd also like to point out skepticism to "unbelievably inexpensive to own". To operate, sure. But to own? The tech in these cars alone could easily be $100k. And there's no reason to think society will allow you to operate a car that's 99.999% safe when you could be operating a car that's proven to be 99.99999%. As time goes by, more 9s will keep accruing. And the extra 9s will keep the tech costing the same or more per car as time goes by.

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

#80

Post by bluGill »

tryitnow wrote: post #33
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 eff…

> If you're on public transport, you could conceivably do something like reading or watching a show while traveling

Maybe you can, but I can't. I tried it for 5 minutes this morning and remembered again why I just stare out the window when on transit instead of trying to read.

It is still better than driving myself, if only because I'm not the bad driving doing something stupid.

Post reply on HN