Interesting. Does anyone have links to a better explanation of how edge cases work? All I find is the happy path and political coverage of it. I would be interested in things like how it affects those with handicaps, how moving and deliveries work, and where people park their cars when living in these zones (vs traditional street parking).
In a nearby city they replaced a 6-lane street with a tram line; those with handicaps get better public transport and nowadays all newly built public transportation is accessible. Public transport or bicycle is the way to move and there are still some roads for deliveries. If you want to park your car, you better have a garage or private parking space.
I assume they allow some driving on the old road for emergency vehicles and moving trucks?
I guess there would be a lot of resistance in the US if it relies on public transit. Every couple of years our's shuts down for strikes, not to mention it doesn't run 24/7.
"If you want to park your car, you better have a garage or private parking space."
Yeah, I was kind of wondering if they end up building more garages in other areas to make up for the decreased parking in these areas. Although I assume there is some selection going on where the more car-centric people choose to live elsewhere.
> I assume they allow some driving on the old road for emergency vehicles and moving trucks?
Usually there are, although they are shared by pedestrians, bicycles and cars/trucks alike.[0] There has been some valid criticism with regards to shared spaces, although in my opinion a lot of that criticism comes from not being used to the concept.
> I guess there would be a lot of resistance in the US if it relies on public transit.
I wouldn't be surprised. Most US cities have been built or rebuilt around cars and car ownership. That's a lot of entrenchment and I don't think it will be easy to move to a different model. I'm convinced that one first needs an established public (mass) transport before you can start transitioning to a model with less cars on the streets. That however is only really possible by a public enterprise and that I don't see happening for the next few decades anywhere near a noticeable rate in the US.
Cars are killing our neighborhoods and our communities, they rip apart municipalities and are so horribly inefficient.
In a nearby city they replaced a 6-lane street with a tram line seamed by trees, walkways in both directions and plenty of bushes and shrubberies animals. It now has double the carrying capacity.
It's also astounding how much quieter it has become. Its barely above 70 dBa anymore.
It's particularly sad to see local residents trying to cross several lanes of busy traffic just to get to the other side of a street. Sometimes it's like watching a game of Frogger.
When the pandemic began, our city closed off a section of downtown street and turned it into an outdoor eating area. It looks much better and makes shopping easier. I don't see the city ever changing it back, because the new area is getting a ton of use.
Here in Silicon Valley (Palo Alto), we finally removed a pedestrian street after being forced into creating it by COVID. The experiment lasted from last fall until this October, and both business leaders and local residents are extremely happy to see cars on University Avenue again.
The pedestrian area was unsightly and busy, and left limited room for parking. Businesses suffered without traffic. Residents were upset when passing traffic was displaced into their neighborhoods.
The pedestrian zone was a reasonable experiment, but it failed and we need to admit that it failed.
Venice is without cars (due to necessity) and it's awesome. Transportation is handled by boats along the canals. Now that is an idyllic arrangement -- no cars, no buses, very few bicycles, just people walking and then taking boats.
If a city does not overbuild and reach high density beyond the capacity of infrastructure, then cars remain by far the best mode of transport. They are point to point, with no wait times, no schedules, no stops, with higher travel speeds, and can take you outside of the city core to other destinations. The time saved and ability to take people and things directly to any destination leads to a far richer life than we could live otherwise.
The negatives of cars seem exaggerated by articles like this and urbanist activists in general. I live in a city with mostly cars and don’t notice either the pollution or noise. Modern cars have very little pollution simply due to regulation, and I certainly don’t smell any pollution when I ride in bike lanes on busy streets. The noise is also pretty negligent unless you live right next to the highway, which most people don’t. Cars today are also incredibly safe, with only around 1 fatality per 100 million miles traveled, and provide far more utility back to society than this minor cost. Additionally with driver assistance technologies becoming standard, their safety will increase dramatically. Cars bring more communities together because neighborhoods are more accessible to each other.
These daily articles pushing an anti-car sentiment ultimately seem very one sided and childishly idealistic. For example this particular article doesn’t mention what the trade offs are in Slovenia. It claims residents adapted but has no data to establish if they are happy or unhappy with changes, if they are even the same residents as before, if living within a 15 minute radius has limited their choices, if how they spend time has changed for the worse, and so on. It similarly lacks data for those who live outside this core area but used to visit it regularly before the changes. It’s hard to draw any useful conclusion from such a simplistic and biased take.
You lost me at "no stops." I've been stuck in traffic for far too many hours of my life to take a statement like that seriously. There I am, sitting there in my car, staring out at an ocean of vehicles that are moving at a crawl while trying to travel in the same direction. Why are we all stuck there? Because somebody a mile ahead tried to change lanes while sending a text. There goes my freedom of transportation, along with my sanity.
You make a good point, and I acknowledge there can be traffic that can cause the equivalents of stops. However where I am, even with the impact of rush hour traffic, commuting by car is roughly twice as fast as taking a bus or the subway or biking. It really comes down to what the level of population density is and the proportion of that density to the available road infrastructure. Beyond a certain number, density just doesn’t make sense anyways. Many desirable things like parks don’t scale to keep up with infinite density. You end up having to look outside your immediate neighborhood for those amenities, but then that takes up more time than a less-dense place where you can drive to destinations. What I am getting to, is that balance is needed. I think making a small amount of room for bike lanes is fine, but banning cars and getting rid of most parking spaces goes too far.
So what is this car paradise city you live in where everyone can get where they need with "with no wait times, no schedules, no stops, with higher travel speeds" and I assume no parking problems at your destination?
Cause all the car-centric cities out there struggling to scale and building the "one more freeway to solve congestion" would love to study your city that got it right.
I was talking about Seattle in that instance. And it comes down to not creating congestion and contention for things like parking spaces in the first place. Many cities run into scalability problems because they overbuild (both commercial and residential) and take density to an unnecessarily high level. Density isn’t a good thing, and virtually no one seeks it out as a positive trait in and of itself. The actual benefits of a city - like good restaurants, amenities, events, and so on - can be had at a much lower density than the level at which it makes transit a problem.
To answer your final point, I would ask why cities need to scale further at all? Unchecked growth shouldn’t be a goal. Seattle in the 2000s had a population density of around 3000 per square kilometer, which was plenty enough to sustain a city but not so much that it brings all the negative problems with it. The density is slightly higher than that today but not as high as Barcelona, which is at 16000 per square kilometer.
You need density so that normal people can still afford to live there. Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts.
> Otherwise you'll just have all the big cities turn into places for the elites of the societies while the rest needs to live on the outskirts.
Why is that a bad thing? Not everyone has to live in one place. A more distributed economy across a web of smaller cities seems more desirable. The high cost of living is exactly what is supposed to discourage people from moving to an expensive place. If people want to put up with a high cost and live in the outskirts with a longer commute, then that is their choice - they are explicitly signaling that they accept such a trade off, and I don’t think any special accommodation should be made for them given that voluntary choice.
One reason I don’t feel much sympathy for that outcome is that in the US, there are numerous locations across the country that are affordable and good places to live. The problem is that many feel entitled to live in the most desirable and trendy (in demand) places, and then bemoan the expense. But why wouldn’t it be expensive? No one is entitled to live where they want at whatever price point they want, just as I am not entitled to get a beachfront property in Hawaii just because I desire it.
I visited Slovenia and stayed in LJ for a long week in...2012?
Lovely city, enjoyed the cafe culture. THAT SAID....getting around downtown was a pain in the ass. I don't cycle so walking EVERYWHERE got tedious.
The article reads that residents adapted to cycling or public transit. How do people transport physically large possessions (big screen TVs) or luggage (40kg rucksack + 25kg+ sea bag/duffel bag + 10kg assault pack)? Hauling that stuff onto a city bus would be a major inconvenience.
Seems like more of the "you'll own nothing and be happy" dystopian Great Reset stuff that comes out of so many European organizations.
You probably have good reasons, but then you need to understand you’re not the target demographics. 95% of people can cycle, and electric bikes or trikes or tuk-this exist for the rest of the population, and are much less expensive than cars. I’m pretty sure no one HAS to use a car to survive.
Heavy load cargo bikes and electric bikes exist, and are much cheaper than cars. And of course you can request autorisation from the city council (usually with a mobile app) if you really need car access to the center for some reason (moving, hauling stuff etc)
Your message sounds like a strawman argument. Sorry we enjoy cycling and dislike smoky noisy cars in our face.
>>>95% of people can cycle, and electric bikes or trikes or tuk-this exist for the rest of the population, and are much less expensive than cars. I’m pretty sure no one HAS to use a car to survive.
"less expensive" "use a car to survive" "electric bikes are cheaper"
It sounds like you are optimizing your urban design for a far lower level of material wealth/abundance than I would. Bikes being cheaper is only a plus if you are severely resource-constrained, but it ignores all of the positives of private vehicle ownership such as fully-enclosed, secure, environmentally-controlled transportation and storage. I live in a climate with 125 days of rainfall per year, and 75% average humidity. "Bikes are cheaper" is meaningless if I'm forced to get soaked to the bone transporting stuff in a torrential downpour or a brutally humid sunny summer. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm not the target demographic of impoverished bicycle aficionados in mild climates. I always point to Japan as "urban design done right". There are beautiful parks all over Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto. There are prolific cyclists getting around. And there are also street racers in 800hp sports cars screaming down the highways by night. Something for every demographic. It's inclusive.
The car-hate echo chamber is REALLY strong on HN.
>>>And of course you can request autorisation from the city council
The last thing I want in my life is being required to engage with bureaucracy for something as simple as relocating my own belongings.
>>>Your message sounds like a strawman argument. Sorry we enjoy cycling and dislike smoky noisy cars in our face.
EVs are cars. They are neither smoky, nor noisy. You responded to a "strawman" with a strawman of your own.
22 comments
[ 7.0 ms ] story [ 56.6 ms ] threadI guess there would be a lot of resistance in the US if it relies on public transit. Every couple of years our's shuts down for strikes, not to mention it doesn't run 24/7.
"If you want to park your car, you better have a garage or private parking space."
Yeah, I was kind of wondering if they end up building more garages in other areas to make up for the decreased parking in these areas. Although I assume there is some selection going on where the more car-centric people choose to live elsewhere.
Usually there are, although they are shared by pedestrians, bicycles and cars/trucks alike.[0] There has been some valid criticism with regards to shared spaces, although in my opinion a lot of that criticism comes from not being used to the concept.
> I guess there would be a lot of resistance in the US if it relies on public transit.
I wouldn't be surprised. Most US cities have been built or rebuilt around cars and car ownership. That's a lot of entrenchment and I don't think it will be easy to move to a different model. I'm convinced that one first needs an established public (mass) transport before you can start transitioning to a model with less cars on the streets. That however is only really possible by a public enterprise and that I don't see happening for the next few decades anywhere near a noticeable rate in the US.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Cars are killing our neighborhoods and our communities, they rip apart municipalities and are so horribly inefficient.
In a nearby city they replaced a 6-lane street with a tram line seamed by trees, walkways in both directions and plenty of bushes and shrubberies animals. It now has double the carrying capacity.
It's also astounding how much quieter it has become. Its barely above 70 dBa anymore.
Cars need to disappear from our cities.
When the pandemic began, our city closed off a section of downtown street and turned it into an outdoor eating area. It looks much better and makes shopping easier. I don't see the city ever changing it back, because the new area is getting a ton of use.
The pedestrian area was unsightly and busy, and left limited room for parking. Businesses suffered without traffic. Residents were upset when passing traffic was displaced into their neighborhoods.
The pedestrian zone was a reasonable experiment, but it failed and we need to admit that it failed.
Let's hope that with renewed efforts come better successes.
The negatives of cars seem exaggerated by articles like this and urbanist activists in general. I live in a city with mostly cars and don’t notice either the pollution or noise. Modern cars have very little pollution simply due to regulation, and I certainly don’t smell any pollution when I ride in bike lanes on busy streets. The noise is also pretty negligent unless you live right next to the highway, which most people don’t. Cars today are also incredibly safe, with only around 1 fatality per 100 million miles traveled, and provide far more utility back to society than this minor cost. Additionally with driver assistance technologies becoming standard, their safety will increase dramatically. Cars bring more communities together because neighborhoods are more accessible to each other.
These daily articles pushing an anti-car sentiment ultimately seem very one sided and childishly idealistic. For example this particular article doesn’t mention what the trade offs are in Slovenia. It claims residents adapted but has no data to establish if they are happy or unhappy with changes, if they are even the same residents as before, if living within a 15 minute radius has limited their choices, if how they spend time has changed for the worse, and so on. It similarly lacks data for those who live outside this core area but used to visit it regularly before the changes. It’s hard to draw any useful conclusion from such a simplistic and biased take.
This sounds a little like, "if we optimize for cars, then cars are optimal."
Cause all the car-centric cities out there struggling to scale and building the "one more freeway to solve congestion" would love to study your city that got it right.
To answer your final point, I would ask why cities need to scale further at all? Unchecked growth shouldn’t be a goal. Seattle in the 2000s had a population density of around 3000 per square kilometer, which was plenty enough to sustain a city but not so much that it brings all the negative problems with it. The density is slightly higher than that today but not as high as Barcelona, which is at 16000 per square kilometer.
Why is that a bad thing? Not everyone has to live in one place. A more distributed economy across a web of smaller cities seems more desirable. The high cost of living is exactly what is supposed to discourage people from moving to an expensive place. If people want to put up with a high cost and live in the outskirts with a longer commute, then that is their choice - they are explicitly signaling that they accept such a trade off, and I don’t think any special accommodation should be made for them given that voluntary choice.
One reason I don’t feel much sympathy for that outcome is that in the US, there are numerous locations across the country that are affordable and good places to live. The problem is that many feel entitled to live in the most desirable and trendy (in demand) places, and then bemoan the expense. But why wouldn’t it be expensive? No one is entitled to live where they want at whatever price point they want, just as I am not entitled to get a beachfront property in Hawaii just because I desire it.
Lovely city, enjoyed the cafe culture. THAT SAID....getting around downtown was a pain in the ass. I don't cycle so walking EVERYWHERE got tedious.
The article reads that residents adapted to cycling or public transit. How do people transport physically large possessions (big screen TVs) or luggage (40kg rucksack + 25kg+ sea bag/duffel bag + 10kg assault pack)? Hauling that stuff onto a city bus would be a major inconvenience.
Seems like more of the "you'll own nothing and be happy" dystopian Great Reset stuff that comes out of so many European organizations.
You probably have good reasons, but then you need to understand you’re not the target demographics. 95% of people can cycle, and electric bikes or trikes or tuk-this exist for the rest of the population, and are much less expensive than cars. I’m pretty sure no one HAS to use a car to survive.
Heavy load cargo bikes and electric bikes exist, and are much cheaper than cars. And of course you can request autorisation from the city council (usually with a mobile app) if you really need car access to the center for some reason (moving, hauling stuff etc)
Your message sounds like a strawman argument. Sorry we enjoy cycling and dislike smoky noisy cars in our face.
"less expensive" "use a car to survive" "electric bikes are cheaper"
It sounds like you are optimizing your urban design for a far lower level of material wealth/abundance than I would. Bikes being cheaper is only a plus if you are severely resource-constrained, but it ignores all of the positives of private vehicle ownership such as fully-enclosed, secure, environmentally-controlled transportation and storage. I live in a climate with 125 days of rainfall per year, and 75% average humidity. "Bikes are cheaper" is meaningless if I'm forced to get soaked to the bone transporting stuff in a torrential downpour or a brutally humid sunny summer. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm not the target demographic of impoverished bicycle aficionados in mild climates. I always point to Japan as "urban design done right". There are beautiful parks all over Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto. There are prolific cyclists getting around. And there are also street racers in 800hp sports cars screaming down the highways by night. Something for every demographic. It's inclusive.
The car-hate echo chamber is REALLY strong on HN.
>>>And of course you can request autorisation from the city council
The last thing I want in my life is being required to engage with bureaucracy for something as simple as relocating my own belongings.
>>>Your message sounds like a strawman argument. Sorry we enjoy cycling and dislike smoky noisy cars in our face.
EVs are cars. They are neither smoky, nor noisy. You responded to a "strawman" with a strawman of your own.