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.
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
...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
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
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
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
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.
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..
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.
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,
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.
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.