Slashdot Mirror
Creating Car Free Cities
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.
Maybe 5 years ago, I would've agreed with this, but now I don't. To me, it seems the main reason of "banning cars" is to make the environment cleaner. But with these new fuel cell cars and electric/gas hybrids, cars will be emission free soon. This idea doesn't really do it for me.
When you don't have a leg to stand on, don't even get up.
I think for a true car-free city to work, it has to be reasonably compact.
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!
The biggest problem with non-car methods of transportation is that it is very expensive to build.
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?
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
I can see maybe designing a city to be car-free, but it seems like it would be next to impossible to convert a typical city to such. Consider:
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!
Twenties Retirement
This is fine if you live in a city that supports walking. I live in Dallas, Texas, USA - a city spread out and practically designed around the automobile. I live in a suburban area that's 3-4 miles from a grocery store, 3-4 miles from a gas station, 50 miles from my office and at least 10 miles from the nearest major shopping center. It's not a matter of wanting a car, it's a matter of having a car in order to function.
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.
The inefficient use of land and the liberal use of asphalt has turned America into a sterile hell of one 8 lane road after another. I understand that many Europeans are envious of our road system but the envy is misplaced when you have to drive way out to get anywhere or--even worse--you have to sit in traffic for 30 minutes to move four miles. That is reality in South Florida and southern California. I don't think everyone needs a car but the political structure here doesn't want to entertain the concept of public transportation. It's a dirty word or a social program at best.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Uh its called the subway. And its a very awesome invention that takes me to work everyday, costs me $63/month and frees me from needing a car.
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.
Ever try and ride a bike with 10 bags of groceries? I agree that people waste fuel and cause more pollution by taking cars for short trips but sometimes you just need the carrying capacity.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Too bad they don't address the cultural barriers to car-free cities in the United States. Cars represent freedom here, plain and simple. Until that mindset changes, we won't have a car-free city for all the urban planning in the world. Can you even imagine something as benign as London's new car toll happening in Los Angeles or New York? People would scream bloody murder. Granted, there's a geographic component to consider as well; our cities are larger and more sprawling than in Europe or elsewhere.
It depends if you want to primarily: A) Reduce traffic B) Pollution A) Requires alternative transport, infrastructure change, and, most importantly, attitude change. B) Simply requires better cars. Implementing method A to solve problem B is like using a hammer to swat a fly. Both problems will have to be solved technically rather than socialogically. We humans are a stubborn bunch.
\\ Mitch
Cars provided an incredible service that cannot be matched by public transportation. A truly modern and environmentally designed city that respects the rights of its citizens must keep an individual mode of transportation. Now, the key to this is that this does not mean a car. For example you can use personal transit systems (PRTs) which provide service very similar to your own car. That is, you are the only person in it and it takes you from point A to point B. Such systems run on rails or dedicated lines, and are computed controlled, which allow for much faster speeds (up to 150 mph).
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.
...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.
-- Galen Rhodes grhodes@the-chatter-box.com Journal: http://journal.the-chatter-box.com/users/grhodes "Consistency
Not with the government in the auto industry's back pocket...
oil companies.
urban sprawl will destroy this country.
... hi bingo
Car's aren't perfect but they are the most economically efficient solution for most places. The main problem with cars is that most governments have decided not to improve the roads when improvements are needed. When they do improve them they do stupid things like the Big Dig in Boston. Trains are wildly expensive for anything but the most densely populated cities. Segway's are too slow to handle long distance travel. Cars are versitile, quick, efficient, and do their job well.
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!
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Oh, please. I recently moved from a small town to a large city(Memphis), which is heavily car-dependent. I must say that I had much more individual freedom back home, where I could walk or ride my bike to the stores, and the traffic was light if I wanted to take my car.
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 if you want to reduce car usage, you should try to make cities smaller, which makes accomodating pedestrians and bikes easier. Of corse you still need cars for long trips, but one should not have to use one just for everyday tasks. Being forced to use a car is no more free than being forced not to use one.
Consider all the human labor and parts, each part built of resources harvested from the environment. Each hour translating into time you spend working to support that car. Consider the sum cost of your car / insurance / fuel / registration / parking tickets in a year. You WORK to support that. Wouldn't you rather be free of that?
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.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Ever try and ride a bike with 10 bags of groceries? I agree that people waste fuel and cause more pollution by taking cars for short trips but sometimes you just need the carrying capacity.
...
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 ever use my car for is going "specialty" shopping, usually for things like cat litter, which is a bit too heavy for carrying. If only there was some sort of a website from which I could order these things, and have them delivered right to my house
Money I owe, money-iy-ay
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.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
Without the cars, there would be plenty of people on the sidewalk and it would be safer.
I truly pity people so lazy as you. What an awful thing life must be, feeling so dependent on a machine to do anything or go anywhere. I don't have a car, I've never had a car, and I have never felt any difficulty in getting to the "fun" neighborhoods wherever I've lived. Actually I usually get there faster than my car-owning friends since the bike is always faster and the subway often is.
People get sick from exposure to germs, not from being outside. Aside from the seriously infirm, you won't find a doctor alive who would tell you that it's unhealthy to go for reasonable walks in cold weather.
Hell, I bike all winter ever year, through snow and all, and I can't remember the last time I had a cold.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Hahaha! Wow, that's hilarious. First, before anyone responds to this guy, check his sig. At this point, the "kook alert" bell should be ringing.
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.
Zoning laws.
Building Codes.
Automobile inspections.
Pet laws (leash and otherwise.
The committee has been around for a while. Where have you been?
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
The roads are quite cozy and not accomodating to any sort of car larger than a Honda Civic
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 approaching a marked cross walk or intersection, or in parking lots.. Bicycles and motorpowered bikes do not..
As a regular bike commuter (and automobile owner) in Boulder the only problem I have is with folks, in their oversized pickup trucks, who abuse the fact that they are bigger. These indignat, megalomanical folks that will use and abuse this fact at any opportunity, failing to yield the right of way and generally driving recklessly, because they can.... They are the danger not the peds/bikes.
Fortunately most of the folks here aren't this type of jackass, so it works pretty well..
Just another view of all this... How many people died from terrorists last year in the world. 700ish I heard? How many people died in car accidents just in America? 50,000ish? How much money are we (our dictator Bush) spending on playing cowboys and Iragis? 75 billion I think he requested?
I know I'm stretching connections here but it's still interesting to think what could happen if we spent 75 bil$ on transportation in this country. How many lives would be saved just by improving mass transit, or better bike lanes, or just some informative commercials or billboards for all the thick-headed drivers around here.
Just pondering...
Jason
Well... I live in NYC, and I'm sure that if cars were totally abolished, a vast majority of the population could easily adapt (except for cab drivers though).
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, the marathon folks can run through the whole thing in just about 2 something hours - imagine what you can do on a bike!)
As a start, EVERY road (and highway) should have a separate bike dedicated lane.
And ALL roads should have speed bumps to physically enforce the speed limit (35 mph means 35mph, not 65!). A speed bump could ensure a very uncomfortable ride at anything above 40mph, while would be hardly noticeable under 30.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
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.
Buy a bicycle and go car free, more like. What are the advantages of a Segway over a bicycle?
(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?
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Having grown up in Brazil, I must say I was probably like most americans. Life without a car was impossible. Public transportation sucked, and maybe differently from the US, was dangerous. Going out with friends usually meant driving for at least 10 miles, usually much more. Downtown was 20 miles away.
I have been living in Paris for 4 years now. I am fortunate enough to afford living in the city centre. And I do not have a car, nor do I want one.
Don't get it wrong, Paris is far from a car free city. It is probably a car infested city. Worse than that, most Americans will find driving here close to insanity. Parking is impossible. Taxis on weekends, inexistant. Well, they do exist, but will refuse to take you anywhere. It doesn't matter. Let me tell you why...
I am only 4 miles from everywhere. That is correct, Paris is a circle 8 miles in diameter. Being in the center means 4 miles from anywhere. And 2 million people live in this area ( 10 million in metropolitan area ).
I am also only 1/4 mile from a subway station. In fact, there is no place in the city much farther than that from some station. The subway goes everywhere.
So, we learn to live without a car. And the city is divided in what we call "quartiers". This means, local neighborhoods where you have everything. Supermarket, bakery, cinemas, restaurants, and everything else you need on a daily basis.
And it is so great. I still like cars, and rent them whenever I am in a travelling mood. But in the city? No point in having it. And walking is so great.
Everyone should try it once in a lifetime. For me, I learned that there is an option to car "dependant" life, and I do not want to go back...
Having people in our public spaces makes those spaces much more safe. It's idiotic how people have lobbied to have public phones and benches removed, because they encourage loitering and make the community less safe. That's bull. Loitering makes a community more safe. It's things like cars that take people out of public spaces and make a community less safe.
Spent a lot of time in NYC, which has one of the "best" public transportation systems in the world. Spent a lot of time in Atlanta, which has one of the worst.
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,
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 without attempting to resolve them. Actually, I quite like the outdoors, and would like to see less of it under asphalt. I would like to have real parks within walking distance, which are closer to the 'outdoors' than a back lawn ever could be. I don't think things will change instantly, but you have to start somewhere.While I would not care to live in a medieval city, for example, there are many factors in historical city design which could help to improve today's cities. Today's cities are socially stratified. They have lifeless centres. They are hostile to pedestrians and cyclists. People hate and fear their neighbours.
Canada, actually. A car is even more necessary here, due to colder, longer winters, and greater distances than in the US. I was trying to make the point that actions speak louder than words. That major change is the result of many small decisions. That each of us can do something if we want to see cities change.I have kids and a dog. I would rather have a quarter the yard of my current house, so long as I had:
- no useless front yard (currently 1/3 of my yard)
- minimal driveway (currently 1/6 of my yard)
- a nearby park to take the kids and dog to play, in some real open space
- zero setback zoning bylaws, so that instead of two thin side yards, I might have one usable side yard (or none at all).
I think the above would give me a better lifestyle than the typical suburb. Less maintenance of the showy, useless stuff, more time to do the things I enjoy.Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
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.
doing things on foot requires different approaches, that's all. when the grocery is one block away, you only buy for today and tomorrow maybe. you don't buy 12 bags of stuff. when you buy something big, you get it delivered.
it's not as hectic or as much of a hassle if you don't let it be. car scale thinking for foot scale living makes things harder than it needs to be.
m.
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."
The major problem with having a car free city in the US is lack of transportation. The reason we don't have transportation is the way the cities we live in are built. The cities we live in are built the way they are cause every one has a car. Here lies the problem.
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.
It's an interesting idea, but we - and I'm talking humans here - will never change until the final hour, when the last drop of oil is squozen from its source and a concrete slab covers the last patch of grass. It is our legacy, and there's nothing to suggest we will change. For cryin' out, I live in L.A., and the number of SUV's here boggles the mind, this the most liberal state I've ever inhabited. If change requires individuals to make uncomfortable decisions, then the plan to change is doomed.
Spread a little sunshine!
Say what you will about pollution, the "emissions" aren't nearly as bad as they used to be.
I was not aware that horse crap produced global warming...
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >>
Whoa there! In literary circles there's an idea called "context", in which discussions of bikes vs. Segways don't degenerate into discussions of bikes vs. cars or pedestrians. But thank you for supporting debate rather than just using mod points - I'd much rather have to defend my beliefs than be told unilaterally "you're wrong". As for your argument:
(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", 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) 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?
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Oh yeah.. your so freaking brilliant! Why, lets see.. I work in downtown Houston. I think I want to live 10 minutes away..that puts me where? In really old, EXPENSIVE housing.. or a crappy ass over priced condo. You can have your little shit box. I wanna live in a house, with an actual yard my daughter cna play in. One were I don't have to hear the street noise 24 hours a day. That means I have to travel far further than a bicycle will get me in reasonable time. Or, in fact in reasonable safety. Of course.. you're probably the jackass that rides down the two lane blacktop and holds up the real traffic (you know.. the cars the damn road was built for in the first place). Come on, what may be oh so great for you may not work at all for other people. In some instances your way may create extra headaches for people who already have enough to deal with.
A lifeless suburb? Gee.. I have neighbors I;ve known for years. People that I help out and help me out. People who we have cook outs iwth. Is that lefless? Or does lifeless mean "No chance of getting ran over 10 feet from your front door"?
As far as your "fundamental truths". Get bent. Your arrogant self-righteous opinions are not truths.
In North America the scheme for eliminating freight ways is doomed.
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...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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 federal government was able to do it -- at the sorry state that it was, and even worse that it became soon after that, it barely performed its basic functions, and couldn't compete with anything at all except for the poorest of the consumers. Instead money were spent only on competing with it, at the cost to the public, so public had to pay twice -- first for the infrastructure (highways), then for transportation costs increase (cars, fuel, insurance, garages and/or repairs). Good job, federal pork-handlers.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.