Creating Car Free Cities 1018
Silas writes "CarFree.com is a great site that "proposes a delightful solution to the vexing problem of urban automobiles." The site presents a fascinating, detailed proposal for a major city (1 million people in 100 square miles) that doesn't require the use of cars. This isn't a new concept; a lot of the ideas are modeled off of major car free cities in Europe (like Venice)." The page on Morocco is fascinating.
CarFree.com (Score:5, Funny)
Re:CarFree.com (Score:5, Insightful)
(a) You don't actually have to pedal to push your fat ass up a hill;
(b) You don't have to share the road with cars that might hit you;
(c) You can ride on the sidewalk, being relatively safe without actually breaking the law.
Let's tackle these arguments point by point:
(a) If you're so fat that you can't push yourself up a hill on a bicycle, then you're too fat. See a doctor, seek professional help. Bitch all you want about choice, I dont want to pay 10 cents extra for fries because you sued McDonald's over your self-induced aneurism. To misquote Barry White, "Your Fatness is your Weakness."
(b) Yes, riding a bike on the streets is dangerous. I know, I commute to/from work 20 miles/day on a bike, in traffic, in what has been described as the worst, most aggressive rush-hour traffic in the US. But I've been doing it for 10 years, and by being careful, I have yet to get hit by a car. I don't expect everyone to be as careful as I am, but I don't expect that in a car either. Sure, you're more vulnerable on a bike, but OTOH you're not going nearly as fast (well, okay, I've topped 40 mph under normal road conditions and 60 mph when the road was blocked to cars, but your average cyclist wouldn't do that). Seems to me that it balances out.
(c) Riding on the sidewalk rather than the streets makes you safer, sure. It makes pedestrians significantly less safe, since they become suddenly at risk of being hit by heavy objects moving at high speeds. So what's good for you *on* the Segway is bad for you *off* the Segway. In addition, you still have to either stop at red lights, or run the lights and risk getting hit by cars - in addition, in most cities you have to go at the speed of pedestrians when you're on the sidewalk. This defeats the purpose of riding on the sidewalk to begin with.
Basically, if you ride on the streets you become a bicyclist who doesn't pedal. If you ride on the sidewalk you become a pedestrian who doesn't move his/her feet. Either way, the only advantage you gain is that you don't have to actually exercise your fat ass, so you can burn even more fuel dragging yourself from point A to point B without helping yourself in any other way. Now, who wants a Segway?
Re:CarFree.com (Score:3, Funny)
Re:CarFree.com (Score:4, Funny)
Re:CarFree.com (Score:3, Interesting)
(a) He did suggest seeing a doctor. We're all human and we're all capable of achieving a basic level of physical fitness. Anyone who says otherwise is as closed minded as someone who claims they could never learn to use a computer. He did put it a bit trollishly, though. I have to work really hard to keep up on the climbs with guys who are 60 lbs lighter than me.
(b) You're absolutely right. I don't know what he's talking about. Something else to consider, though, is that if everyone on the road was
Re:CarFree.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I've found it to much safer to be a bicyclist on the road in an area that has a lot of other bicyclists on it --- drivers of cars tend to be much more aware. Also, once the bicyclists get a critical mass, then there's a larger constituency for, and it makes more sense to invest in, bike lanes and bike paths. When I lived in Palo Alto, I rode my bike to work every day ---
Re:CarFree.com (Score:4, Insightful)
(a) Yes, pure trolldom. But since my point was to discuss bicycles vs. Segways (which are roughly equivalent with regard to speed but nothing else), I feel justified in trolling. The implied solution I offered was to ride a bike rather than a Segway. That way you not only get some exercise, but you get some legal protection as well (read below). And for the amount of money you'd spend on a Segway, you can get a REALLY nice bike.
(b) First of all, you're wrong - it's the RELATIVE velocity of the two bodies that's important. I won't argue here about the relative speeds of bikes vs. Segways, because I don't expect everyone to be riding their bikes (or driving their Segways) at top speed. Regardless, I agree that getting hit by a car when you're on a bike totally sucks. But getting hit when you're on a Segway, for which most state codes don't have laws about wearing helmets or obeying the rules of the road, isn't any better. And as you point out, "Riding on the sidewalk doesn't necessarily make you safer" [slashdot.org], which argues against one of the justifications for a Segway, "You don't have to share the road with cars that might hit you". As for my "great luck", it comes from being careful and following the rules of the road - read below.
c) What did you expect to happen when you were riding on the sidewalk? Your typical driver doesn't expect high-speed traffic on the sidewalk. This is my biggest argument for bikes vs. Segways. If you're going to go fast, you should be on the street - most states' vehicle laws regarding bicycles (read mine here [state.ma.us]) specify that you can only ride on the sidewalk "outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety...." If you're riding fast, you should be in the street so cars pay attention to you. This, and the fact that I expect cars not to notice me unless I force them to, is why I haven't been hit, not my "great luck", as you imply. If you weren't riding fast (i.e., if you were going at the speed of typical pedestrians on the sidwalk), then your argument has nothing to do with bicycles, because you would've had the same problem as a pedestrian. In any case, since there are no laws preventing people from riding Segways fast on the sidewalk, your experience only supports arguments against using Segways.
I don't care if you walk, drive your car, ride a bike, or steer a Segway - my point is that a Segway is equivalent to a bicycle (a) without the legal restrictions, (b) without the safety regulations, and (c) without the exercise. So why should I want to ride one?
Re:bikes on sidewalks (Score:4, Funny)
This doesn't even take into account NYC, where it is traditionally acceptable to drive on sidewalks during rush hour, provided you honk the horn repeatedly.
forget the cars (Score:3, Funny)
Re:forget the cars (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, let us forget the cars for they are on the verge of being environmentally friendly (anyone else drive a hybrid) and SUVs are still sucking it down like -- well you know like what --
Besides, now that there are so many SUVs anyone in a small car is much more likely to get squashed in an accident rather than dinged or jolted.
Re:forget the cars (Score:3, Funny)
Whew! (Score:5, Interesting)
If only NYC and others followed with some awesome inovations.
public transportation in NYC works well (Score:5, Interesting)
But what many people overlook is that a large fraction of the cars are taxis and limousines. And taxis are fairly affordable.
You can get by without a car in NYC because you can just flag down a cab any time, day or night. Widespread availability of taxis is an important part of a city free of (personal) automobiles. If other cities had a taxicab system as good as that in NYC, far fewer people would need cars. As a bonus, it is politically and practically much easier to convert taxi fleets to new standards (natural gas, hydrogen, electricity) than personal automobiles.
Re:public transportation in NYC works well (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem. Make all the claims you want about the great convenience of public transportation, but nothing--nothing--NYC has beats the convenience of getting in your car, pulling right into a parking spot 100ft from the store (one of dozens of spots available), putting your purchases in your trunk, and then pulling right back up to your abode. This is city life in Atlanta. You don't walk anywhere, ever. Even if it's right across the street, chances are the street is 4 lanes wide and you have to traverse a couple acres of parking lot to get there. Besides residential streets, just about every commercial street is a first class highway.
NYC? It's a hassle. Everyday life is a hassle. Going grocery shopping is a hassle. Purchasing anything that you can't carry easily in your arms is a hassle. People do it, but it's a hassle. Subways are extensive, but crowded, stations are nasty and ridiculously hot. You have to walk for a quarter mile in the maze of some large stations to just chage lines (i.e. times square/42nd street station), Trains often have panic-inducing delays where youre stuck on the train--hey the system's old, sometimes something malfunctions, sometimes somebody pulls the emergency break, sometimes somebody's causing trouble and they need to wait for authorities---maybe for 5 minutes, maybe for 50 (god help you if really were planning to jump off at the next stop to hit a restroom).
Taxis? Always available?! HA. Try catching a taxi anywhere in midtown around 11 to midnight on weekends when the theaters let out. Try catching a taxi anywhere during rush hours.
Now, transport in Atlanta isn't all fun and games either. Try coming home from work 5:30 on 285-West (Atlanta's perimeter). Atlanta's regarded as having one of the worst traffic situations of any major city in the nation. Already Atlantans have longer average commute (in time) of any major city. But on weekends, or during non-peak traffic times...it's simply a breeze.
Atlanta is a new city, that really began growing after the invention of the automobile. So where as an old city like NYC or Boston is actually built at the scale of the human, Atlanta, like most big western cities, is built at the scale of the car. Pedestrians are the exception, and they're taking big chances.
This makes for a really sprawling, uncozy, alienating, uninviting city life. But I don't feel like NYC, for all its humanscale traffic is much more cozy. It's a hectic headache.
There's gotta be new thinking in people moving...focusing not just on environment, but quality of life and practicality,
Re:public transportation in NYC works well (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously, you didn't get the hang of living in NYC :-)
Everyday life is a hassle. Going grocery shopping is a hassle.
Why in the world would you go "grocery shopping", in the suburban sense? Eating out is cheaper and better. Delivery takes a few minutes. Grocery shopping for most Manhattanites means "olives for the Martini" or maybe "a gourmet salad for after the show/party".
Purchasing anything that you can't carry easily in your arms is a hassle.
That's what delivery and doormen are for.
Taxis? Always available?! HA. Try catching a taxi anywhere in midtown around 11 to midnight on weekends when the theaters let out. Try catching a taxi anywhere during rush hours.
It's all in the wrist.
but nothing--nothing--NYC has beats the convenience of getting in your car, pulling right into a parking spot 100ft from the store
There are plenty of things that beat that, like letting other people do the work for you: delivery, handymen, restaurants, cab drivers, etc.
Seriously, you complaints sound about as quaint as if you had said "Life in NYC is so hard: lugging up all those containers full of soil to my balcony for my potatoes, and the chicken I keep in my bathtub keep me up all night. It's a wonder New Yorkers haven't all starved yet."
so you're saying it's great if you're rich (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in Houston, which is alot like Atlanta, but with much better roads. Yes, there are lots of crappy things about a motopia. There are also things that are good and bad, depending on your point of view. For example, it allow the middle class to seperate themselves fully from the lower classes, leaving most (until recently almost all) inner city neighbourhoods in Houston 99% lower
Re:Whew! (Score:3, Funny)
Throw up your hands, and raise your voice!
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!!!
(mono -- DOH!)
Re:Whew! (Score:3, Funny)
Segway? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a great concept in general- people would be more likely to walk to where they had to go, rather than drive half a mile to the store to pick up the ice cream and chocolate syrup.
Re:Segway? (Score:2)
A Segway should never be used on pavements... that really dissuades those that walk.
We used to have cycle lanes... why not use the Segway (or even better... a bike!) in them?
Re:Segway? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really wish, though, cities like Dallas and the surrounding area would make a more concerted effort to expand transportation and encourage companies to build and rent office space near major rail line depots. For someone like me, public transportation isn't even an option since the buses don't run anywhere near my home or office, let alone the rail lines.
Until we see not only cleaner cars or alternative forms of transportation, but also cities helping out the suburban sprawl, people won't be ready and willing to give up their transportation for something like a Segway HT.
Make the market do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone could live near work, but few are willing to change their lifestyle. There are a few things that would have to change from today's norm, including adapting to slightly smaller houses, much smaller yards, etc. Think of row housing, with enough yard for a small garden, and you get the idea. It would be much more sustainable, but most people want a freestanding house in the 'burbs, with a big driveway, and lots of useless lawn.
I live 25km from work, and commute via bike and bus. It takes about twice as long as a car, but I don't get to work frustrated from the traffic. Five or ten years from now, I expect that my next house will be closer to work, smaller, and better designed. Many poeple I know expect to keep upsizing to ever-larger houses on more land, further from work. Most environmental problems are not someone else's fault, they result from decisions we make every day, magnified by millions or billions of people.
Re:Make the market do it (Score:4, Funny)
I was just on my cell phone trying to find a house further from my work... and calling the lawn people because my neighbor's grass is two shades greener than mine (i hate that bob.)
Sincerely,
AC
Re:Make the market do it (Score:5, Insightful)
I also bought where I did because I get more house for my money. Why move to a neighborhood near my office where I pay $30K more for half the house? The neighborhoods outside of the area my office is in are home to majorly affluent people (to me at least). What I think you don't understand is that developments are built by corporations that determine what type of people they want to live in a particular area. Just because some average Joe like me comes along demanding less expensive housing doesn't mean they'll create it for me and the others. If you've ever been house shopping, you'd understand that you have to buy in the areas that meet your budget. One just can't go out and build a cheap house next to their office because that's what fits their daily life.
As far as a useless lawn...you don't have kids, do you? There's something to be said for having a nice backyard where your kids can play and have a bit of independence without having to always drive to the park (no parks really near my house).
Re:Make the market do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Every 5 miles closer to work I get house values increase dramatically. The same house (same builder and everything) is $20,000 more expensive just 15 miles down the road.
Another more pressing problem is that my wife and I both have careers. She is a PhD student at the University of North Texas, I work basically in Irving. It's not feasible for both of us to live close to our respective daily destinations. We can both live 15 miles away, but that doesn't really solve anything does it?
The answer really is functional mass transit. In Dallas (worst case city wise) there is a nice light rail system that runs through the central part of town (right down the central expressway). If you live in the north-central part of town, you can get to the downtown area with no effort.
The problem is that for those of us live in other parts of town the mass transit option is completely non-existent. It would take me 30 minutes to reach a transit station (by car) and then I could ride the rail to the same street as my work and then spend another 25-30 minutes on a Bus. Suddenly my commute has tripled in time if I choose the mass transit option... that's just not feasible.
We need an in-expensive retrofit transport solution. That computer controlled, elevated personal taxi system on slashdot awhile back seems like the most interesting solution I've seen. Monorail type systems have all of the same problems as current light rail, with the added bonus of extra cost. The hub and spoke model heaps inconvienence on the commuter, and is incredibly inefficient at actually getting people to work (although incredibly efficient at getting them all into one place).
I WANT to take mass transit. I hate driving. I'd rather read and drink coffee while someone else drives me... but I simply don't have that option right now. When my wife graduates, mass transit options are going to go a LONG ways in determining which city we live in next.
Re:Make the market do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes! Increased demand for housing in urban areas! Just like paying $2000 for a studio apartment in San Francisco during the dot-com years, but with even more demand for living space!
Gee, sign me up. NOT.
Ignorant (Score:4, Insightful)
All that said, I agree that wiser decisions on everyone's part can help. However, you make it sound like a point blank choice of whether to drive a car or not. In most parts of the United States it is necessary to function.
Ignorant? Speak for yourself, buddy (Score:3, Insightful)
Suburbs beyond walking distance from work have existed for less than 100 years. Cities have existed for several thousand years. Most responses to my comment assume that just because suburbs and urban sprawl are the norm today, they cannot be changed.
Yes, and laws can be changed. Not overnight, certainly. I pointed at possible solutions, you only raise problems
Re:Make the market do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Segway? (Score:3, Insightful)
That "solves" polution how again? Sounds more like an increase and transfer to me.
Oh, before anybody wants to bring up solar/wind/methane/etc., when every house has it I will believe a few Segways will be recharged with these methods.
Re:Segway? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I do agree that this type of analysis is needed and seldom done, consider that in the US you would be hard-pressed to purchase a car that weighs less than 800 kg, while the Segway weights about 100 kg. If both vehicles are used to carry one person (typical for most US driving), then the Segway will be vastly more efficien
Electric vehicles != no pollution (Score:3, Insightful)
The inefficiencies in moving power from the station to the vehicle (i.e. charging efficiency, conversion to heat, power line loss, etc.) can be considerable.
I'm not saying that they're necessarily bad, but they aren't as "clean" as one might think.
MadCow.
Re:Electric vehicles != no pollution (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but they usually don't. Internal combustion engines are stunningly inefficient in certain situations, at low speeds, around town, when braking a lot etc. In those cases, a light electric car is many, many times more efficient and less polluting. Since Segways are used around town, there's almost no way they can pollute more than a car.
And the subtle point is that the electric car pollutes outside
Not for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not for me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not for me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think she very well may be more safe. Cars, and the general use of public space that they encourage (i.e., no pedestrians) encourage crime. Your sister will be much safer in an environment where the streets are not abandoned, occupied only by cars and fearful people trying to get home.
Having people in our public spaces makes those spaces
Re:Not for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
don't think mfg a car / roads roads is harmful? (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider all the NOISE that comes off a freeway, as well as the fact that tar / asphault highways must be MAINTAINED. If you live in a city, think about how many times you've suffered the noise from a jackhammer. Think of all the times they've torn out a road to fix a pipe, and then replaced the road with something worse than you had in the first place.
Consider the environmental eyesore that a TEXACO / CHEVRON / SHELL station is. Try to remember what the country looked like before the drivethrough convenience store. You used to be able to walk to those places. Now our cities are half parking, guessing 5% auto maintenace commerce, roadside billboards. Where's the soul?
If you've been victimized by them (i have), consider the involuntary stress / tightening of your jaw muscles when you see a parking enforcer. Ever had your car hostile-towed?
How about car breakins / vandalism / theft? Been there, suffered that.
Been to a bar lately? Had to get home lately?
Consider the sound of a heavy delivery truck in reverse (beep beep beep). Now scale that to the number of times you hear it. Live in a real city? Ouch.
If you live in a snowy area, think of how it is, scraping ice off your windshield in the morning, and hoping your car battery didn't die. And if it did, paying the tower, or buying a replacement battery.
AND, finally, think of all the money you give to the auto and insurance industries. They ARE the same folks who make tanks and HUM-V's. And, yes, they ARE corporate lobbyists. So when you get a lame war, or when the trolley system in your city gets dismantled, remember whose money was used to give them that political power. It was yours.
I'm sure there's more, but that should press the best buttons.
Think b4 you drive.
Let's see some simulations (Score:3, Interesting)
let's be practical about it.... (Score:5, Informative)
You haven't been there (Score:4, Informative)
I remember the first time my dad took me there. I was 11 or 12 years old. It was falling apart faster than they were building it. It was an interesting walk albeit risky due to the delapidated nature and lack of any kind of safety barriers. This was roughly 23 years ago.
All these years later not much has changed. The web site makes it look a lot nicer than it really is.
Re:You haven't been there (Score:3, Informative)
Up to a point... (Score:3, Interesting)
sPh
1 million people in 100 square miles? Please. (Score:5, Funny)
I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also from NYC, and I agree. The proposal is for a very sprawling city, which in my opinion is exactly the problem. In a dense city like NY, it is much easier to walk and use public transport than to use a car. Density also reduces land-use, leaving more areas for parks and such. The problem is in suburbs and suburban cities like LA, where cars are a necessity and smog is the norm.
Flee the suburbs! Bunch up and know your neighbor!
never! (Score:3, Funny)
And Venice? Really? So we're gonna replace cars with boats?
Re:never! (Score:4, Funny)
That wouldn't be such a shocking idea if you've ever driven a Lincoln Continental.
Fes... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Fes medina is not a modern city, as most of it's buildings are historical landmarkes by other nations standards. If you want a modern city, go outside the medina where the roadways are wide, cars are common, and skyscrapers loom. Comparing the medina to a car-free city is like comparing cave-art to Da Vinci.
Good site, but old stuff (Score:2, Interesting)
The site was featured by Maxis when they released SimCity 3000.
Since then I've thought it would be easier as a top-down solution to just move to a hydrogen based economy. Too much construction/reconstruction would be required to transition major metropolitan areas, and that's without getting the politicians involved. (not to mention that the zoning laws would have to be tyrannical to move to such a non-sprawl urban design).
Car-free city must be compact (Score:5, Insightful)
Take for example Tokyo and New York City. The actual amount of land used in the center city is quite small, small enough that walking or using a mass-transit system becomes quite viable.
You definitely cannot do that in Los Angeles, that's to be sure--it's so spread out that you'll need exorbitant amounts of money to build a mass transit system the cover the whole Los Angeles Basin.
Note that in the case of London, England, the Underground subway system got there first before motor vehicle traffic because London HAD to build something to alleviate the horrible street-level traffic of horse-drawn carriages of various types in the late 19th Century immediately. That's why the Underground travels all over the London metro area--in fact, the Underground helped develop a number of London suburbs!
Re:Car-free city must be compact (Score:5, Informative)
True, however it's important to note that the London Underground started with simply putting trains (regular huge trains with steam locomotives) underground. The main reason for this was the fumes and soot caused by the steam locomotives, and also the fact that there were so many lines coming into the city, they needed to go somewhere, and underground was the best place to put them. It did not start off as an urban transit line or a subway system.
That's why the Underground travels all over the London metro area--in fact, the Underground helped develop a number of London suburbs!
The concept of mass transit creating suburbs is not unique to London. The concept of a "streetcar suburb" is known in nearly every large U.S. city, and others around the world. (It's important to note that the word "suburb" became corrupted somewhere along the line. With the advent of Levittown and the postwar boom, "suburb" became synonymous with "suburbia" - the land of tract housing, large yards, a car in every driveway, and the split-level ranch. That is not, however, what it meant at the turn of the century)
Streetcar companies would buy cheap land at what was then the city limits, built streetcar (or elevated) lines out to the land, parcel it up, and sell it off. Many families bought it, since it was away from the noise of the city, they could have a small yard and such, and yet getting to the city was still easy. The land sales paid for the initial investment of the line, and made a tidy profit for the companies, too.
yes, ban the cars (Score:5, Funny)
Hydrogen baby! The fuel of today.
Problem: car-free is very expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
All it takes to move via car is a relatively flat piece of land. If it's paved, all the better, although this is expensive as well (a mile of 4 lane highway costs millions). At least roads are (relatively) cheap to repair... you grind off the old surface, and re-cover the base.
Most non-car solutions involve rail, which is also expensive. Unfortunately, as a city expands, you'd need more and more interchanges, as well as 'feeder rails'. That's a hellacious amount of infrastructure.
Looking at one of the proposed architectures, the spoke-like arrangements, just seems to be comparisons to the cube/squared principle in biology. Perhaps the cities will have a small max size?
Of course, if people use a Segway, bike or (gasp) walk, a lot of this doesn't matter. At 6'5" and 280, I can't use a segway, so t'hell with 'em.
Besides, until 'rocket launcher' is an option, why bother?
Re:Problem: car-free is very expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's cheap as all get-out. You replace those $20,000 cars by $400 bikes and use all the same road infrastructure. The roads still cost money, but at least they hold up a little better without the cars pounding on it, and less pavement is required to support the same throughput of bike traffic as for car traffic. Plus you can stop spending so much money on parking structures in high-rent downtown areas.
Re:Problem: car-free is very expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Funny you should say that.... In fact, I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where it can be below freezing for weeks, and I do ride my bike to work daily in that weather. It's not that big a deal. People ski in that weather for fun, right? A little exercise warms you up a lot--dress to be a little cold when you leave the house, and in a few minutes you'll be unzipping your jacket....
Problem: cars are very, very expensive (Score:5, Informative)
In the real world, it also takes insurance, traffic police, highway patrols, traffic courts, road cleaning, snow removal, over- and under-passes, gas stations, refineries, planning offices, car junkyards, emergency roadside assistance, fast-responding emergency medical services, helicopters, traffic surveillance, traffic computers,and on and on. Many of those costs are much lower or non-existent for public transportation, and you do pay for them, through taxes, fees, association memberships, auto and medical insurance, etc., expenses you may not associate with cars but expenses that are nevertheless very real.
And those are only direct, easily quantifiable costs. When you add in costs for maintaining a presence in the Persian Gulf, for respiratory diseases caused by pollution, for lost productivity due to traffic jams, for ecological damage from paving over large parts of the country, and other such effects, the costs are even worse.
As an exercise, just total up what you pay in terms of gas, insurance, license fees, interest, amortized purchase price, amortized disposal fees, and other car related expenses per year. I think you'll be surprised how expensive driving it, and that only accounts for a fraction of the costs mentioned above.
Oh, by the way, I don't know whether you are in good shape or not, but if you drive less, chances are you would also be in better shape than you are now (and save on medical bills, too).
Re:Problem: cars are very, very expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Trolleys didn't go out of business because of the Interstates. This is not hard to figure out. Look at the closure dates for various trolleys.
Of course, trolleys couldn't compete -- no one improved/replaced them with better public transit, lagging behind pretty much every other industrialized country in the world in the area of public transportation. Say, NY subway, being a more or less usable system, remained without any trouble.
The point is, public transportation needed _improvement_, and only federa
Preplanning (Score:5, Insightful)
1) People like cars. Tell them they can't use thier cars anymore, and you're liable to be voted out of office.
2) If you get rid of cars, you have to have an alternative system of transportation in place. Unfortunately, the only place to PUT that system will many times be where the roads are now. Result: you can't build the system until the cars are gone, and you can't get rid of the cars until the system is ready!
Re:Preplanning (Score:3, Informative)
In some cases you can build under roads, too.
Shouldn't We Cut the Admin a Break? (Score:4, Funny)
Er, sorry dude.
Awesome (Score:2)
Ride a bike, ride public transport (Score:2)
Most trips that people take are very short ( a matter of a few miles, a few minutes ) to pick up groceries or go out for food.
These can easily be done on bicycle.
No need for Segways or creating new cities.
We just need some self-discipline people!
Re:Ride a bike, ride public transport (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ride a bike, ride public transport (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you need 10 bags of groceries? Do you have 15 children, or something? My shopping consists of mostly fresh vegetables, fish, and dairy, which I walk to the local farmers' market 2-3 times a week to get. That way, it's fresher, and never more than could fit in a basket.
Since I bike to work, the only thing I e
My beautiful commute (Score:3, Interesting)
I did have to make some lifestyle choices to make this happen: I choose to work downtown and chose to live close enough to walk, bike, skate or unicycle there.
Venice? (Score:2)
Venice shouldn't be used as a model for anything except what not to do.
Besides, making a car-free city by making cars impossible ("Hey, let's flood the streets!") is not the goal. The goal is to make it possible for humans to retain their current level of productivity without needing cars. Also, within that goal, I think there's the implicit constraint that the cars don't get replaced with something just as bad (li
Re:Venice? (Score:3, Interesting)
As I understand it, the city of Venice is pretty much a tourist town, with modern Venice on the mainland (actually a different city, with a diifferent name that eludes me), an ugly blight of post-industrial wasteland, and a vas
Americans made their bed (Score:4, Insightful)
auto industry won't let it happen (Score:4, Interesting)
People's Republic of Boulder (Score:5, Interesting)
Boulder is big into trying to dissuade people from driving cars and to use public transit or other means of getting around. People, bicycles, and other man-powered (or small engine-powered) vehicles have the right-of-way and will use and abuse this fact at any opportunity, walking in front of moving cars and riding against red lights. This causes nasty traffic jams, accidents, and generally pisses people off. The roads are quite cozy and not accomodating to any sort of car larger than a Honda Civic, like my pickup truck.
I would love to live in an auto-free town, riding my bike and using monorails or whatever transport the city provides. But trying to adapt existing cities to this mindset is asking for nothing but trouble.
Re:People's Republic of Boulder (Score:3, Insightful)
Your kidding right? We have standard 12" lanes here, just like everywhere else in the state...
trying to adapt existing cities to this mindset is asking for nothing but trouble.
No. The real problem is adaping the PEOPLE in these cities to this mind set. If your driving around in a pickup that doesn't fit on the roads, YOU'RE the problem not the city..
Peds in Boulder have the right of way while in or appro
Re:People's Republic of Boulder (Score:3, Insightful)
Subways are great + for non-subway/bus accessible areas, bikes are perfect.
I'd seriously consider riding a bike on an everyday basis if I didn't have to worry about being run over by a car. AND, for most trips, riding a bike would actually be faster!
(anyone who rode a bike through 5 boroughs knows that this whole place just isn't that big... I mean,
Transitioning (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem I have found with these types of advocacy groups is that no one is proposing sensible plans for transitioning away from car-centric urban development.
I am all for living car-free, (In fact I have gone out of my way to organize my life so I only drive about once a week), but the fact of the matter is that we are currently saddled with ugly, sprawling, single-use zoned cities. With the possible exception of places in China, nobody is building large metropolitan areas from the ground up. What we really need are feasible intermediate steps to gradually eliminate the sprawl and the dependency on cars.
Intermediate steps need to have both the short term benefits as well as moving cities towards the goal of reducing auto-dependence.
Not in the U.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
Living in Japan (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends... (Score:3, Insightful)
barking up the wrong tree (Score:3, Insightful)
These systems are actually cheap to build if you consider that road space would be freed and can be sold to private parties by the city. Think about it, selling two lanes of 5th Avenue in New York back to businesses would pay for the entire system in Manhattan.
The problem with Utopian ideas... (Score:4, Insightful)
...is that it is based on the assumption that you can get everyone to agree on the same thing. I think it's safe to say that, unless you are ready to brainwash everyone or legislate them to the point of living in a mental prison then, it's never going to work.
I think we can all remember the end-result of that last great Utopian experiment known as the U.S.S.R.
car free...culture challenge more than anything... (Score:3, Interesting)
first 800 miles [bookofseg.com]
info on city of seattle [bookofseg.com]
and interview i did with the city of seattle [bookofseg.com]
cheers,
pt
Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with getting rid of cars is that I want a back yard. The bigger the better. Most people don't want to live on top of one another in big buildings with no place for their kids to play. A world without cars is a world where everyone needs to be packed in on top of each other so that mass transit can work. I don't like that idea.
If the roads are too crouded, build bigger roads. It's not a hard conept. Why do people think they're doing something clever by not building roads when they should (I live in New Hampshire, north of Boston where commuting is horrible.) We waste thousands of man-hours of time every day, waste tons of gas, increase pollution and make thousands of peoples lives more stressful. It's not celever!
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides that, the more fundamental problem with "big roads" is the fact that by increasing road size, you are only making traffic congestion worse. The more spread out a 2-dimensional suburb is, the greater distance you need to travel to get from point a to b. The problem is of course you live at point a, but several hundred people may need to get to point b at the same time. No one seems interested in differential schedules (which are a duct-tape solution to a small portion of the problem anyway), so this isn't likely to be fixed any other way.
Of course, the fundamental problem with your argument goes even deeper. Building bigger roads is only a temporary solution, and as long as it can keep up with traffic congestion, it only encourages urban sprawl. Your suggestion would only work if land and fuel were infinite commodities, and buildings could be moved and roads expanded with ease.
The danger of car free cities (Score:4, Funny)
Without the most popular mean of overcompensation for, ahem, insufficiencies, more and more people will turn to what were until now secondary means: guns and wife beatings.
We need to figure out a solution to this problem before we take this big step. Perhaps padded shoes or somesuch.
Car free? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess car free would be OK, as long as:
a. Nobody ever wants to go anywhere public transit doesn't go (another city? countryside?)
b. There's some way to get 50lbs of groceries plus other assorted, bulky, items, to within 10ft of my door while also transporting my wife, two kids and a great-grandparent.
Good luck.
A Pattern Language (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of the city-design ideas on this Carfree.com site echo those advanced over 25 years ago in the influential book A Pattern Language [amazon.com] by Christopher Alexander, Sara, Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, and others. This book details a "working alternative to our present ideas about architecture, building, and planning," with over 250 specific advisories starting at the very high overview level ("Independent Regions" instead of our current nation-states) and moving in successive stages down through town design, becoming always more specific ("Mosaic of Subcultures," "Industrial Ribbon," "Nine Percent Parking," placement of food stands and bus stops), and then to low-level details of individual building design ("Sequence of Sitting Spaces," "Light on Two Sides of Every Room," very specific construction details, and "Paving With Cracks Between the Stones").
A Pattern Language is a remarkable book, the principal influence on Stewart Brand's The Whole Earth Catalog and used by the city designers for the upcoming STAR WARS GALAXIES online game. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that its "patterns" concept influenced the current mode of "design patterns" among coders. For other examples of the book's influence, and of the theorists' current work, see their Web site [patternlanguage.com], especially the overview of patterns [patternlanguage.com].
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Simcity.. (Score:3, Funny)
How to get to a car free city: (Score:3, Insightful)
Make technology so great that nobody has to leave their home. Ever. Why do we leave home as it is?
1. To go to work. Well, let's get net applications and vpns better so more people can telecommute.
2. For entertainment. DVD home theater packages prove that people will choose to stay home if the technology is good enough. So, we need holodecks at home so nobody will need to leave their home for any entertainment.
3. Food and shopping. Revive WebVan. Amazonify everything else. Deliver everything to people's homes.
4. Social reasons. Improve web video so people can interact via their computers. Less need to go out.
Do these four things. People will still need to go out every once in a while for something tangible (visit the dentist, see Yosemite for real) but you'd severely reduce traffic. And, as people got more overweight from lack of physical activity and eating all the home delivery food, they'd be physically unable to leave the home, reducing traffic further.
If people move to one... (Score:3, Funny)
Feel sad for all the weenies that think that a honda looks so much better with fins, spoilers, stickers, neon etc...but I guess that's what body mods are for.
Transportation will not work in the US because ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The root of the problem is we build our housing in too low a density in the US.
For transit to work there has to be a minimum number of riders for the system to work economically. To get enough riders to do that transit need a certain density of population. Also transit will normally only get riders to walk 1/4 mile to a transit top.
The problem is most Americans want conflicting things in housing. They want a big house, and they want open space. These don't sound like the conflict but they do.
Say you have 10 acres of land. If on that land you you build like most modern subdivisions do, you will build 1/4 of the land in to streets, and then 3-5 houses per acre. Most people see this and think it is great. they have a big yard and a big house and a street. But, what they don't see is that 1/4 of all our property is covered in streets. Now on top of that land getting used for streets tons of other land gets used for parking lots and freeways. Leaving nearly as much land in the US tied up in places for cars to go as places for people to go. Also, because of the low density of this housing to driver from that house to another house (or school or store) you have to drive a lot farther. The result is more cars on the streets making longer trips. People who design networks will see the problem here. In addition this method of building houses results in a very low density of people. For transit to move these people it has to make long trips and people have to walk a long way to get to it. Also because it is making long trips it takes a long time to get anywhere making transit inconvenient. Because its inconvenient no one takes it anywhere, they have to raise prices, less people take it, etc...
Now, if you look at cities where transit works, NYC, SF and most European cities houses are built differently. In all of these places houses are built much denser. Most Americans will bitch that they would feel crowded. But the result is less crowding. The reason for this is by building denser, say 15 - 20 unit per acre you now can house all those people in less space. Also because people are closer together there is less street getting built and less land dedicated to cars. You can now use that extra space for some thing like a park. Because most people are not home most of the time, building public areas results in more efficient use of that space. Some one will be using it all the time.
Now that people are closer to each other, they are also able to walk from place to place. you no longer have to walk past those huge lots, you walk past a nice small lot.
Most importantly now you have the critical mass of people required to make transit work
Now for all those people in Dallas, San Jose, and Los Angeles who say they cant survive with out cars, try traveling to another country and you will quickly learn it happen every day. All we need is to express interest in living that way and we can start building that way. Many cities are pushing very hard to get more people living in the urban core of the city. They are offering tax breaks, low interest loans and other incentives. Developers build houses the market demands. If people demand better housing that works with transit, they will get it. If a city doesn't zone in such a way to build affordable housing near jobs go down to the city planning department and tell them, they can (and will) change the zoning. Cities want to build smarter. It saves them money by decreasing the infrastructure they have to build and the area in which they have to supply services.
the rats will like this (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, some people like living like rats. Just look at New York: wall-to-wall flesh. You can't get away from people, ever.
Others of us don't like living within a mile of a million other people. In fact, if you put us in a situation like New York city for more than a brief period of time, we'll go ballistic and start shooting people at random. In New York this would probably be a good thing, but that's neither here nor there....
In any event, I see a bunch of self-righteous yahoos going on and on about how we should all selflessly give up our vehicles for all sorts of reasons, reasons they consider to be more important than our own personal convenience. To these people I say: fuck you.
Yep, go fuck yourself. Until you provide me with something better than my car, take your senseless yammering and go annoy someone else. I don't give a shit about the environment, your stupid biker friends who never obey traffic laws, the joys of walking to work in the rain/sleet/snow/tornadoes/whatever, my weight or health, or any of that other godawful crap you think is so goddamned important.
Be a good capitalist and give me something better. Until then, get out of the way or I'll run over your sorry socialist ass.
Max
No freight ways is a return to pilferage (Score:3, Insightful)
Too much volume. How many donkeys does it take to carry the same weight and volume as a 40 foot semi trailer.? No multiply that by six orders of magnitude.
The use of containers in shipping has eliminated billions of dollars in pilferage and cut many organized crime revenue streams off at the knees.
And if you have roads for freight, they car also carry cars...
What about emergency services? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Venice can't even stay above water (Score:2)
The BBC reported yesterday that Berlusconi (sp?) had presided over the "ground breaking" for their sea barrier system [bbc.co.uk] that morning ... so it seems they have finally gotten their act together.
Re:Venice can't even stay above water (Score:2)
Yes, his name is Berlusconi, and he is thorougly corrupt, even by US standards. The italians call it tangentopoli.
Re:Why I think lots of people hate cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, the city I live in pretty much forces me to ride my car everywhere. The geography is such that everything is spread out, so it is impractical to ride a bike, not to mention the fact that the roads are not safe to ride in.
I think that
Re:Why I think lots of people hate cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Leftists don't hate individualism, you dummy. They just don't like selfishness - actions that are taken at the expense and harm of others.
Everyone, including lefty types, like the freedom cars bring, but for some, the associated costs are very high. It would be nice to alleviate some of those costs (pollution, congestion, poor urban design) by coming up with something better.
Europeans, in your mind, are no doubt hateful lefties with few redeeming qualities. I recommend you visit, oh, say, Amsterdam sometime. What you'll find are plenty of horrible, socialist, know-it-all, (etc. - all the other name-calling you resorted to) people using an excellent, freedom-enhancing transit system in the city centre, and driving all around in their cars outside of there. Central Amsterdam has great air quality; "bad traffic" is when there are five cars stopped at a light. No one seems to be on their way to the gulag - that would be the U.S., if you happen to be a pot-smoker - and it's safe to say people are pretty individualistic there. The tram and train system is safe, convenient, cheap, and very quick.
As for your absurd assessment of environmentalism - no ideology, not even yours, ever trumps science. Remember that.
Re:Why I think lots of people hate cars (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, my
It looks like you're saying cars don't harm the environment.
You are assuming a point in dispute which this claim.
Cars do harm the environment, and they do pollute.
The first claim is not applicable, the second claim is true.
In
Re:'tards (Score:3, Informative)