Eliminating car use in cities

The benefits of removing cars from cities are obvious, such as eliminating gridlock which frays people's nerves and causes needless pollution. I'd like to know what possible reasons there are for people to still need* cars and thus not rely 100% on public transport in urban areas. I wonder if there are ways to upgrade transport systems and other ones (e.g. online purchasing and distribution to take care of retail travel) in order to make a city only reliable on mass transit. Might there also be a need for more stringent urban planning and regulations to facilitate this plan?

*Yes, need. Walking a few city blocks is not hazardous to your health**
**Actually, it might be, but where did that smog come from?
This reminds me of the public argument I had with a former mayor of Red Deer when he was running for City Council and pontificated that "people are lazy, they don't want to walk a block or two."

He had been extolling the virtues of moving the downtown transfer terminal for the city buses to a part of downtown that was many blocks from the places where people usually go downtown - the library, the park, City Hall, the banks, main stores, grocery stores... and the above quote is what he said to me when I asked him how he expected senior citizens, the disabled, and young mothers with children, strollers, and all their stuff to cope with the extra distance, especially considering all the bars around that area and the fact they'd have to cross a very busy street where the drivers are not used to pedestrians.

I asked this ex-mayor if he had ever taken the bus. "Of course not, I drive a car!" he exclaimed.

"Then you are unqualified to have an opinion on the matter," I told him. Of course he wanted to continue arguing the issue, because to him it was entirely reasonable to call disabled people and senior citizens lazy for not wanting (or being able) to walk an extra 6-10 blocks to get to their destination, part of that distance through one of the dangerous parts of town for pedestrians.

By this time the media had noticed our argument (this was all taking place right after an all-candidates' forum for council members) and they were sensing a story. However, I'd said what I had to say, and left, ignoring his "Come back, ma'am!"

I have no use for city politicians who think public transit isn't critical to the people who need it. From another council candidate who hesitated about putting up her hand when they were asked for a show of hands to see which of them had ever used public transit (her body language screamed "I'm ashamed to admit I was ever on the bus") to a later council member who grumbled about the college students' complaining that the last bus of the night left downtown at least an hour before night classes were over at the college, thus making some students scramble for rides or have to walk late at night ("why don't they just carpool?" he asked, completely oblivious to the fact that if they had a car, they wouldn't need the bus), there are a lot of clueless people in this city regarding any transportation that isn't a car.

The problem is that your solution has to be retroactive.

Urban planning for the last century has revolved around cars, and it has worked. You can talk about how people could live where they could get to work and back without a car, but the fact is that that is not where they currently live. Trying to design public transportation around where people currently live makes public transit not work, because people's choice of location was originally based on cars.

The solution is displacement of cars. Add light rail lines, specifically by turning every eleventh street into a light rail track. Add bus capacity and convenience, by turning the street centered between the rail lines into a bus only road with traffic light priority. Now people can light rail into the city and easily catch an uncrowded local bus from the rail station to a stop very close to their destination. And driving a car has become an order of magnitude more unpleasant, at least. As light rail traffic increases, knock lanes out of the freeways to accommodate it.
I took it a step farther when I was playing the original Sim City. My little electronic citizens got rail transit and nothing else.

Disabled people really do need cars. Public transport can be a real pain to use for them.

And using public transport for a family's weekly grocery shop would be a total nightmare. I don't know how some people manage without a car. But they surely must. They always used to. Before widespread car ownership. Which isn't that long ago.

No doubt involving a lot of visits to the local shop(s).
Shopping was doable for me when I lived within walking distance of my grocery store and the manager didn't mind if I borrowed a cart to get my stuff home (I always brought it back later, as well as any other of that store's carts I ran across along the route between home and the store if I was heading that way). But now... I have to rely on a delivery service. I have seen people on the bus with lots of grocery bags, and I suspect that a lot of those women with the gigantic baby stroller/carriages use them not so much for the kid, but so they have the equivalent of a shopping cart they're allowed to bring on the bus.
 
So we got a new trend here in OT CFC: elimination. Eliminate non essential air travel, eliminate cars, abolish the state, discontinue the moderation ... oops ... that last one would be too extreme.
 
The benefits of removing cars from cities are obvious, such as eliminating gridlock which frays people's nerves and causes needless pollution. I'd like to know what possible reasons there are for people to still need* cars and thus not rely 100% on public transport in urban areas. I wonder if there are ways to upgrade transport systems and other ones (e.g. online purchasing and distribution to take care of retail travel) in order to make a city only reliable on mass transit. Might there also be a need for more stringent urban planning and regulations to facilitate this plan?

*Yes, need. Walking a few city blocks is not hazardous to your health**
**Actually, it might be, but where did that smog come from?

You've obviously never lived in the LA/Orange County, or San Jose metro areas.
 
I think with proper infrastructure you can certainly greatly reduce car use, its folly to suggest "eliminating" it though.
 
No they don't, free market will take care of it.

Remember kids: Free market solves everything! There is absolutely nothing, nothing - I tell you - that free markets can't solve!

It has helped defeat Hitler and knocked down the Berlin wall! It will also:

* Bring resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict!
* It stems the tide of global warming!
* End racial conflicts!
* Empower women!
* Empower everyone!
* Austrian Economics FTW!!!111!!!!
 
Free market hasn't cured cancer yet.

I got ya.

It will eventually!

Everything that is worth living is the result of free markets!

Also, free markets will make Bulgaria richest nation in the world and help it conquer Chicago!
 
Whenever I hear someone say "the free market will cure <whatever>" I'm always convinced they're being ironic.

Mind you, I don't give much credence to other "solutions" offered, either.
 
It will eventually!

Everything that is worth living is the result of free markets!

Also, free markets will make Bulgaria richest nation in the world and help it conquer Chicago!

No, we'll wait until the inevitable moment when USA will break into it's own states, who will then be alone. That's when we'll invade Illinois!
 
You've obviously never lived in the LA/Orange County, or San Jose metro areas.

I assure you, I am quite well aware of how American society is enslaved to the automobile.
 
I assure you, I am quite well aware of how American society is enslaved to the automobile.

The western half of the US might be 'enslaved'...where cities generally don't have any history that predates the automobile. Public transit works better in cities that were not originally designed for automobiles. The rat warren streets meant for pedestrians and the occasional horse are not a good environment for cars anyway, so public transit is a much easier to implement option. A public transit solution that works in LA may be impossible.
 
Remember kids: Free market solves everything! There is absolutely nothing, nothing - I tell you - that free markets can't solve!

It has helped defeat Hitler and knocked down the Berlin wall! It will also:

* Bring resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict!
* It stems the tide of global warming!
* End racial conflicts!
* Empower women!
* Empower everyone!
* Austrian Economics FTW!!!111!!!!

Now you're getting it!
 
The western half of the US might be 'enslaved'...where cities generally don't have any history that predates the automobile. Public transit works better in cities that were not originally designed for automobiles. The rat warren streets meant for pedestrians and the occasional horse are not a good environment for cars anyway, so public transit is a much easier to implement option. A public transit solution that works in LA may be impossible.

The part of cities that have a history predating the automobile is surprisingly small in most cities. And in case of German cities, most of that history has been erased by American bombers anyway. Yet we have decent public transportation. Of course, this has required to spend some thought to the implementation of public transit during urban development. If you do not do that, or give up easily pointing to the lack of history, you will always stay enslaved by the automobile.
 
Do you realize that the carbon emissions resulting from the cost and material expenditure to turn all big and mid-sized cities in the US alone into efficient "car-less" zones would certainly dwarf car emissions?

How many big and mid-sized cities are there in the US? You want to build mass transit in all of them? Covering all the immense suburban sprawls? Or you want to destroy the suburbs and move everyone close to the city core? Do you have any idea of the size of the enterprise you're talking about here? You would need to undo 100 years of urban growth in the US.
This doesn't make sense on the face of it, so I'm hoping you could elaborate. To my thinking, taking 100 cars with 1 person each off the road and putting them into 2 buses can't possibly emit more pollution (of all sorts - noise, particulate, carbon, sulfur, etc) than leaving those 100 cars driving on the roads every day. Mass transit improvements don't have to happen all at once - after all, the suburban sprawl took from post WW2 to today to accomplish. It wasn't a Manhattan Project, it was incremental. Unwinding that is eminently possible through changes in zoning and taxation.


The benefits of removing cars from cities are obvious, such as eliminating gridlock which frays people's nerves and causes needless pollution. I'd like to know what possible reasons there are for people to still need* cars and thus not rely 100% on public transport in urban areas. I wonder if there are ways to upgrade transport systems and other ones (e.g. online purchasing and distribution to take care of retail travel) in order to make a city only reliable on mass transit. Might there also be a need for more stringent urban planning and regulations to facilitate this plan?
My wife and I live in NYC with a dog and a kid (gonna be another kid soon, but no way another dog!). We have a station wagon. We drive ~8k miles/year, 13k km/year. About 2/3 of those miles are just around the city doing errands. It drives me bonkers. Why do we have this car sitting on the street, costing us about $200/month when we don't really need it.

It's super convenient and it's worth $200/month to us.

Could we get by with only public transit? That's a tough one. My kid wouldn't get to go to some classes and events that we feel are important for her. Or, rather, my wife would go insane spending 85 minutes on the subway with a toddler going to and from Prospect Park every Friday morning. Well, maybe she doesn't need that class. Sure. That's a choice. It's a quality of life issue.

But perhaps we don't need to own the car for it. Perhaps taking a cab would work. But then you realize that there is, on average, 1+ trip like this that we do every day. And that cabs don't have car seats. And that T-bones are among the most common accidents in the city because of morons running red lights because they're in a hurry. So not using a car seat is something we keep to an absolute minimum.

Then there are the several times a year we visit friends and family in New England. Before we owned this car we'd rent, but that was always a real headache. And one time we missed Christmas because the car we had was a POS and shouldn't have been allowed on the roads at all (I should have checked the tire tread before signing the agreement!!).

Having a car is a luxury for us, a lifestyle choice. I'd love to see cars eliminated from the city but the mass transit has to be dramatically increased. Some buses only run once every 30 minutes. Others don't run at all on weekends. Well guess what - someone works every single day in this household. So here I am living in the US city that has by far the most extensive public transit system and I see a need for even more. They could double capacity and it would be a start.

So how many cars are in NYC and what are the total operating expenses? What if all that money went to taxes for public transit. How much would the MTA have to play with? :hmm:
 
The part of cities that have a history predating the automobile is surprisingly small in most cities. And in case of German cities, most of that history has been erased by American bombers anyway. Yet we have decent public transportation. Of course, this has required to spend some thought to the implementation of public transit during urban development. If you do not do that, or give up easily pointing to the lack of history, you will always stay enslaved by the automobile.

I would just like to put this out there as to why European experiences cannot really be compared to American experiences. Size wise...

Germany = Montana
UK = Oregon

Right there alone, almost half our population in 2 states. We are WAY more spread out than Europe.

P.S. - Thank you, Scotland, for not making me have to find another State.

germany_montana.png
 
Huh. I thought the argument for using cars was due to the robberies and crimes generally committed on the street.

Although, there's still car-theft, so..
 
Huh. I thought the argument for using cars was due to the robberies and crimes generally committed on the street.

Although, there's still car-theft, so..

The main thing about using cars used to be that the automobile industry was 'the backbone' of the US economy. Massively subsidized by the building of 'roads to nowhere' so that land developers could also cycle huge amounts of money through construction of the suburban sprawl. It was economically brilliant in its time, but short sighted.
 
Back
Top Bottom