Why should I care about Beijing or New Delhi?
I've been to both cities and they are light years away from anything in the United States.
4
Yet New York City still chooses cars over people. Take the East River Park, which is slated for destruction to be replaced with flood levees, where the problem could have been solved by closing just ONE LANE of the FDR highway for a few years (which lies adjacent). Despite constant protests and city hall meetings advocating for the park, which is widely used by runners, bikers, athletes, children, and families, especially those who live in the housing projects nearby but also people from all over the lower east side, the city decided to destroy the park instead of closing ONE SINGLE LANE of traffic. It's embarassing.
3
One way to make cities healthier while still acknowledging that rolling vehicles are part of "city" is to support Congressional efforts to keep encouraging electric transportation. Very simply, electric vehicles produce less pollution than combustion-powered vehicles. That's in every state, including those still hooked on coal. You can look it up.
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html
If your city is considering electric buses - do it! There are some downtown here in Chicago and they don't make noise and they don't stink like diesel buses, they're also greener than the natural gas buses.
Support charging infrastructure. Before someone cuts in about "those elitist Tesla blah blah" that Koch-funded groups love to pull, consider that 2018 Chevy Bolts are out there for prices as low as $20k. Consider that more and more companies are rolling out hybrid and fully-electric cars.
Support looking at what types of trucks are allowed if your town is a big freight hub. We have 3-minute idling rules here, but it's hard to enforce, and people living around areas filled with trucks suffer the consequences.
Support transit and bikes. Again, that infuriates some pressure groups, but they don't have our best interest at heart.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html
4
This was at the heart of the 4-hour City Council meeting I attended as a private citizen to advocate for protected bike lanes for a final three-mile stretch into downtown. (To the city’s credit, 3 or 4 miles of protected bike lanes are planned for upper Broadway). Adding bike lanes to this lower stretch would increase vehicle commuter times by, at certain times of day, by almost 8 minutes! The one car lane in question is in addition to two interstate highways, one double-decked, and one state highway that feed downtown. But my, the cars need those three miles!
Instead of making a declaration to the world that San Antonio gets it & is moving forward with transportation options, the leadership will not dedicate one vehicle car lane on this one iconic street, Broadway, to safely welcome cyclists and scooters on lower Broadway, but instead ensure that vehicles remain the priority.
Life in a Red state, where car is very much the only way to travel! San Antonio is safest by a very large, expensive SUV. Just don’t breathe too deeply when you’re downtown.
4
The same discussion comes up in NYC when discussing congestion pricing or bike lanes. People will argue that the cause of cyclist deaths is the presence of cyclists, and that the roads are "designed" for cars, as if said Designer is an infallible deity who cannot be questioned. In other words, people who say that are either complete idiots or car drivers who resent any sort of oversight whatsoever.
The reality is that the roads are what we deem them to be, and change as our needs and wishes change. And they need to change to accommodate less traffic, more cyclists, and more mass transit.
134
@George Peng
"as if said Designer is an infallible deity who cannot be questioned"
Well he was named Moses, after all, so next best thing.
18
Roadways are a precious resource that generally go un-(or under-)priced. Singapore, London, Stockholm and now New York are pointing the way, but expect the American freebooter ('I already paid for that road in 1976!' -- as if no one ever told you about maintenance) will fight to the death with their Don't Tread on me flag and cold, dead hands on their guns to defend their unlimited right to free stuff. It's the Tragedy of the Commons, writ very, very large.
8
I live in a city completely choked by car traffic, now made infinitely worse by Amazon and Uber. We have a public transit system, but it is completely inadequate to the task of moving citizens around efficiently.
We should remember that Big Oil has an interest in seeing funding for public transit slashed, in favor of road projects that allow more car travel. Imagine that. Here's Hasan Minhaj's take on the subject from last summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z1KLpf_7tU
Why is Paris left out ?
PARIS (Reuters) - Paris authorities plan to banish all petrol- and diesel-fueled cars from the world’s most visited city by 2030. Paris City Hall said in a statement France had already set a target date of 2040 for an end to cars dependent on fossil fuels and that this required speedier phase-outs in large cities.
“This is about planning for the long term with a strategy that will reduce greenhouse gases,” said Christophe Najdovski, an official responsible for transport policy at the office of Mayor Anne Hidalgo."
REUTERS 9/12/1017
Anne Hidalgo is sticking to it. She closed down roads to cars. To the delight of the Parisians and the chagrin of commuters. The latter fought it court.
In October 2018 the Municipal courts ruled that the city’s pedestrianization of the roads along the Seine river were legal
6
"dangling both carrots and sticks to persuade their residents to get out of their cars — or into cleaner ones."
80% of households in Manhattan already do not own cars, yet both sides of almost every street is given up to car storage
https://edc.nyc/article/new-yorkers-and-their-cars
Our streets are choked by people who live outside of Manhattan who insist on driving here rather than using our excellent public transportation (and by the invasion of Uber, which is not needed in Manhattan)
8
A car is costly to maintain, guzzles gas, and emits noxious fumes that affect everyone, as is the cost of public infrastructure to support cars. Private transportation by car should become the exception, hardly the norm for personal transport. No country has become a bigger prisoner of the car-trap than the US, although countries like India appear to be emulating this colossal stupidity. The One-person-One-SUV model that we see every day on every American freeway is just not sustainable in a world of climate change. The only answer is world class, affordable, convenient and accessible, public transport.
7
I'm a contractor with a ridiculously big truck.
Go ahead. Ban me from downtown. You can fix your own building.
31
@Brian W.
Maybe you can live in your "ridiculously big truck," too, when you can't find any work.
44
@Brian W.
The tone is obnoxious but the problem is real. This business person is contributing to society and society is saying he has to go get a new piece of expensive equipment, in essence an unfunded mandate. If we want to spread the costs of our environmentalism we will have to offer incentives: make money available to small business owners to get less polluting vehicles. They exist. In the mean time, "fix your own building" isn't helpful.
35
@Brian W. - work vehicles aren't the problem. It's everyone else on your block deciding they each want to bring their SUV along behind you to see or show or do something else that involves carrying nothing but themselves into dense areas.
74
Problem: too many people. Solution?: more cars. Problem: too many people. Solution? cut down more trees. Problem: too many people. Solution? more fertility clinics. Problem: too many people. Solution?: grow more soybeans, more houses, more concrete, more carbon dioxide.....more....
7
And in America???? Still denying the truth so our children have a bleak future
43
Not here in Houston...
@Mike
I bought my house twenty minutes from work about twenty years ago. That job lasted 2 years. Since then I worked in Clute TX, Pasadena TX, downtown Houston, Oklahoma City, the energy corridor in Houston, Corpus Christi TX, Baton Rouge LA, Lake Charles LA, and Beaumont TX. I wouldn't have survived without a car.
I also lived in NYC for about half of my life. Life became a lot easier and lucrative when I stopped taking mass transit because I could go anywhere I wanted whenever I wanted. I also had a lot more time on my hands depending where I worked.
2
I assume you meant that your life became easier when you moved from NYC, not that you gave up using mass transit while living in NYC.
You can't buy a car in Tokyo, unless you can prove that you have a parking lot.
That is, unless you have tiny Kei-Car, with ultra low emissions and a tiny engine .
And hence, they have become very popular in Tokyo.
6
As part of the bicycle fad our Mayor has assigned an entire car lane on Queens Blvd service roads to bikes and has even gone to the expense of separating the lanes by planting thousands of lane demarking poles. On any afternoon you can see a lane of stop and go cars confined to that single lane - each car spewing ten times the pollution that the freely flowing two lanes road used to see.
These poles force drivers to close proximity with the parked cars, with no maneuverability - where even an opening door threatens a fatal accident. Meanwhile, the bike lane is completely empty; ideology and fashion over observed truth - our own elite form of science denial.
3
Nothing will change in the US until we get over our irrarional fear of socialism. The battle between public sharing and individualism must be dealt with. The word "public" is anti-American. It's anti-American to not pollute. It's rugged individualism that fouls our planet.
5
Stop comparing old Europe with new America. Our suburbs and even cities were created with the automobile in mind; so they’re ill suited to getting around without cars.
2
@Charlierf If you're indeed from New York, NY, then you should realize how ridiculous that sounds.
4
Portland has or had many of the attributes people are discussing: neighborhoods designed for walking, public transit, etc. but with growth and an infusion of new residents came a massive change from mostly small, efficient cars to massive SUVs and pick up trucks.
- If you drive just 2 miles outside of the city you encounter car dealer after car dealer selling nothing but these tanks.
- If you are on the highways you see nothing but tanks, all occupied by a single human.
At some point Americans must come to terms with their senseless drive to own the “biggest tank on the road.” But there will be some pain needed to extract us from this stupidity:
- Auto excise taxes must be set on a scale charging more for the larger, heavier vehicles that pollute the air and have a greater destructive impact on roads and bridges
- Parking Fees for the limited parking available should be increased for these out sized tanks
- Tolls need to be established to enter the city and costs need to be set by vehicle size
- Trucks of specific sizes need to prohibited and discounts in tolls and fees offered to companies to ensure they move to smaller, cleaner trucks.
- Auto companies must be rewarded for removing SUVs from their line up.
All this will create a lot of whining and gnashing of teeth but if we are going to achieve the vision we need to wean ourselves from constant, ego based drive to own the largest possible vehicle money will buy.
114
@Deeg
Right now the US Fed Gov't actively encourages S.U.V. manufacture and sale. That could end, could be phased out, etc. Or, the Feds could make big incentives to buy electric S.U.V.s. It's our choice.
14
The city governments + transportation agencies should set an example by stopping to buy combustion engine cars + buses. Of course that takes infrastructure of charging stations.
Also, a congestion charge should take into account the size of a vehicle. The numbers of oversized fat SUVs crowding out bicyclists and small cars is disgusting.
Ride shares should not be allowed to roam all day but should let off passengers at designated parking spots on all busy street corners - or mid-block for avenues. (Yes, dear, walking 20 steps is not an imposition. You do it in the gym.)
2
Attention should be paid to the Brazilian city of Curitiba, often given as an example of future cities, where automobiles are totally banned from the city center, only public transportation allowed...it has been called the Green capital of the world.
2
i don't see any American cities mentioned. Are we doing anything at all? yes, we are fighting wars to make gasoline ever cheaper lol
1
I wish the NYT would also address the noise and visual pollution caused by the increasing size of freeways. Even if a road has a sidewalk, if you have four lanes of cars barrelling past you, it is depressing. Consider the injuries, deaths and costs created by cars that are not caused by air pollution. Also what about large trucks? They are worse. That horrible sound they make should be outlawed everywhere. These trucks sound like a lion or dragon about to set you afire or eat you alive.
79
In 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the Senate Bill 100, committing California to phasing out electricity produced by fossil fuels by 2045. For the next step, California needs to mandate a zero emissions vehicle requirement for all cars licensed in California to be phased in over the next 10 years. At that time, all old and new cars licensed in California will be electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Zero emission vehicle sales will increase and their prices will come down. Car manufacturers will have to follow California's lead.
3
A couple of decades ago, Athens tried to solve it's traffic gridlock problem by allowing even and odd numbered license plates into the city on alternates days. Naturally, the enterprising Greeks responded by buying a second car with a license plate that allowed them to enter the city on the alternate day, further aggravating the problem.
Thankfully, many Greek towns and cities have seen the light and are mandating some pedestrian-only streets.
2
How about population control? Why does no one talk about that? Is it that religious zealots are more powerful now than in the previous decades? In the 1970s there was so much talk about the need for population control.
If we still had the same global population as we did in 1960 there would be no global warming, no high air pollution levels, etc.
At the bottom of all our environmental crisis is the fact that there should be fewer of us on the planet.
8
@Lily - The "it's all due to population" folks never say what they'd DO about it. Probably because it would require ending current lives to have a quick impact.
If we had the same population as in 1960 everything would be fine? We had warming in 1960 and earlier, because fossil fuel use causes that, not warm bodies. We had pollution - I grew up in Jersey in the 1960s, believe me, we had pollution. The US and England had killer smogs. It was so bad, Republican Nixon created the EPA, and signed clean air and water legislation.
And ignoring actual trends in population to allow complaining doesn't get anything actually fixed.
"US population growth hits 80-year low, capping off a year of demographic stagnation"
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/12/21/us-population-growth-hits-80-year-low-capping-off-a-year-of-demographic-stagnation/
Global rate of population growth peaked in 1960. Rate of increase has been slowing since. Education, public health, access to family planning are the keys to that. Developed nations are seeing population decline start. China's looking at a big population drop in coming decades.
So look at population.un.org and see what's going on. Read this link and actually learn about population trends.
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#the-demographic-transition-why-is-rapid-population-increase-a-temporary-phenomenon
Then try to work on things we can fix, like the pollution and climate change caused by fuel choices.
2
@Lily
Everyone is doing something about the growing population. Economist are talking about a population crunch in Europe and Japan. Experts say population will grow to less than 11 billion and by 2100 and begin too decline. You're aware of what China did to stabilize their population. More and more woman are going to work and it follows they will have less children.
It's not a religious zealot's standing in the way of family planning but economic conditions. In most of the developing world as people get older they need their children to take care of them. There's no SS and Medicare to see them through. Something you need to consider, people will not vote for someone willing to make laws telling them how many children they would be allowed to have.
There is no legitimate scientist saying we must return to 1960 population levels. If a city like New York becomes to crowed there's other cities to go to. Cross the Hudson there's plenty of room to grow.
1
@Lily land of US is too huge for its population. should import 1 billion plus people
1
How can we make our streets safe for bikes? The same way we can have seven year old football PeeWee Leaguers sharing a field with NFL giants.
3
I lived in a Washington neighborhood with a 98 walk score, with excellent access to public transportation. and an easy 30 minute walk to work. I don't walk often, however, because vehicles, including cars, trucks, E-scooters, and bicycles, have made my commute a dangerous one. I take a bus or Metro. Drivers be they in a car or on an E-scooter or bike, simply do NOT obey existing laws. Of course, it would be wonderful to limit vehicles to have cleaner air!
9
I have not owned a car since 2003. According to the internet which is of course always right that has saved $9,000 a year X 15 years = $145,000. Cut that estimate in half and it's still substantial. Can travel anywhere within 10 miles in an hour or less on 3 trains, a streetcar or dozens of bus lines for $28 a month. Also worked in another city for seven months of that time.
8
It astonishes me that we do not require all Uber and Lyft vehicles to be electric or hybrid vehicles. It would also make sense to impose fees on their customers that fund public transit.
12
@A. Gallaher You do understand that Uber and Lyft Drivers own their own cars and tend to be on avg working class individuals that are trying to provide for their families and pay off their car note. Your proposal would be an unreasonable financial burden on those people.
@A. Gallaher
I’m with you but they’re both privately held companies. The only way to force change is to vote with your wallet.
Try to find alternatives...it’s a pity that bike riding in the States is such a dangerous proposition.
2
@A. Gallaher That's a brilliant idea!
Removing cars from the cities will help with pollution and congestion, most certainly, but without an effective alternative it will be a hard sell. Mass transit could take years to put in place, and for low density American cities it might not work so well. Bicycles are great, but in a city with roads built for cars, you take your life in your hands. I commute by bike quite often; the trails are fine, but I am terrified of that last mile on the road to the office.
5
Singapore. The city has implemented the costliest and strictest legislation on private vehicle ownership in the world and it works remarkably well. Yes, Singapore is a small city state but the metro system is superb and well used. The main streets, ie Orchard Road, are busy but not gridlocked like so many other cities. Most my Singaporean friends would like, in theory, to own a car but when faced with reality of ownership, opt out.
3
Air pollution is a central issue. However, of equal concern should simply be how we use our public spaces. As I struggle to get my small, Western city to consider a pedestrianized space, a mere 5 blocks long, the question I keep posing is "Do we really need to give every inch of our city's common public space over to the passage and storage of private cars?" This is not historically how streets have been used, and we've lost a lot in fully mechanizing them. I admire the experiments of many cities, but I think we've only begun to re-scratch the surface of what our public spaces might mean to us if they weren't fully occupied by machines, their noise, and their pollution. Once again, they can serve essential social, political, and cultural functions, if we let them.
31
Mass Transit improvements cannot keep up with cars. Gov't regulation has to limit the cars heading to inner cities. Nashville recently had a bond issue to improve mass transit was defeated despite the dire need. The opponents screamed no new taxes. People don't need big gov't to tell them how to utilize their motor vehicles. Trump is in the process of trying to roll back the clean air act.
3
@c harris
Good points but it is important to note that, regarding Nashville, the Koch brothers (the NYTimes did a great article) poured massive amounts of money to defeat the new light rail measure. Having their money tied in resources necessary in road and highway construction, they see mass transit as a threat to their obscene wealth. Utterly disgusting and a sobering insight into human nature.
2
@c harris - Nashville's experience was another sign of the profit motive combining with dark money to fight against the public good.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html
Public transit cuts demand for the asphalt and oil they sell. "Public" things that benefit the public also fill these ultra-libertarian zillionaires with horror. Rather than pay taxes, they invest similar amounts in disinformation, lobbying, pressure groups, and lots of campaign money (often through dark-money channels like Donors Trust). All that money to fight against them adding some of their wealth to the public systems that are fundamental to increasing our country's wealth and well-being.
I visited Spain last month and kept wondering why these beautiful and fragile old city centers did not ban cars and motorcycles. It would reduce wear and tear on the old buildings and roads and its so much quieter too and its safer. The motorcycles are especially loud and dangerous as they drive a lot faster. No surprise that the liberal city government of Madrid implemented measures to solve the problem and conservatives tried to undo the measures. Some things are the same all over the world.
10
As ride-hail services such as Uber and Lyft skim more passengers from public transit, these systems are often forced to reduce frequencies and/or consolidate, making routes longer and less convenient. What was already a less desirable option becomes even more so.
Public transit rarely wins the convenience contest unless it is inexpensive, frequent, and fast enough to beat the congestion inherent in auto commuting, via dedicated rights-of-way.
1
Rideshares were supposed to cut down on congestion, but several independent studies in San Francisco have shown the unintended consequences to be vastly increased congestion.
4
cities "worldwide" are taking on cars, but in the US? In Rhode Island, the opposite, widening I-95 in the center of Providence, rebuilding an expressway interchange over the objections of the adjacent low income neighborhood ruined by the highways, building a new interstate interchange to facilitate Citizens Bank moving much of its workforce out of the metro area to the boonies where everyone will have to drive, mostly long distances, phasing out auto property taxes...
In the US the motorists war on drivers is on. High-speed rail here? Forget it. Lower speed limits? No, they are usually raised. Significant gas taxes? No, not raised (Federally) since around 1994. Penalties for killing bicyclists or pedestrians? Rare unless evidently drunk.
Well, we get the air pollution, inadequate transit, congestion, declining cities, crumbling bridges, endless sprawl, numerous road fatalities and injuries, and the profusion of ugly strip malls, parking lots and garages and such that we in effect vote for.
27
Parking our rental car in central London this spring, we noticed the 'meter' station had vastly differing prices according to car types: a standard gas car, was around $12/hour, but an 'old' (pre 2015!) diesel was $20+/hour, whereas a zero emissions all electric vehicle was... $1.50 for three hours !
There was no price for Trucks or SUVs because nobody drives them.
12
@Narikin Well your post makes me thankful I live in NYC, I think Ill drive to Fleishers in Park Slope this weekend and pay $2.00 an hour for parking.
I really do wish the NYT would stop highlighting European polices that would never work or get passed in the US. Its a waste of site resources.
1
Besides the environmental and quality of life benefits of reducing our dependence on private vehicles, cutting back on cars would lead to fewer parking spaces dominating the landscape across so much of our country (and parking requirements affecting the scale, cost, and convenience of city living). A lot of these issues fall into the category of things that would improve most of our lives a great deal, but that can't be implemented on an individual basis. It's very inconvenient for one person to quit driving in a car-dependent city. But if the city transitions to less car dependency, everyone benefits.
13
Let's talk about the United States a bit more. A potentially helpful yet unheralded idea is to repeal or reform minimum parking requirements found in municipal zoning codes.
These codes are a major contributor to urban sprawl. Developers must dedicate large swaths of building sites to parking lots that stand empty in many cases. The codes encourage driving, not only by making parking available, but also by forcing buildings further apart and thus discouraging walking. Urban flooding and "heat island" problems are exacerbated because landowners pave green space that would otherwise absorb rainfall and sunlight (I'm in hot, sunny and flood-prone Texas).
Lastly, there's a convincing libertarian case for repealing such codes. Architects often recognize that they won't need nearly as much parking as the code requires, yet they're forced to design smaller buildings to make the parking fit (the codes are usually tied to building square footage), and money is wasted laying pavement that will rarely be used. Builders should be free to build what actually they want, need, and can afford, yet city planning authorities remain convinced that parking requirements are needed so residents won't be inconvenienced by walking... yet those residents wind up stuck in traffic instead.
21
@C Walton A major problem is that lenders often insist on a certain amount of parking to be included in a building if they were to finance the project. The same way that banks would refuse to finance a project that allowed jews, negroes, or even sometimes Italians to co-exist with white homeowners, until the practice was banned in the early '70s.
Banks are only part of the problem. The other part is the antiquated insistence on certain amounts of parking in city zoning codes, even in dense projects next to transit hubs. Then they wonder why there is so much traffic congestion .
3
I took a train from Paris to Amsterdam in April, zipping along at 180 mph, like riding on a cloud. Came to the central hub and could transfer to light rail. Do not worry about being list since there was an information person at a desk on each train. I noticed that most of the cars on the road were Lift drivers. And the flow of bicycles, in their own lanes, all going at the same mph. It was quiet, clean and inspirational.
38
@Susan Kuhlman I recently had the same marvelous experience. The Eurostar took us from London to Amsterdam in about 4 hours. The trams from Centraal station are extremely convenient.
For fun, I rented an ordinary single speed bike and had a great time riding among the locals going about their everyday errands. I'm 68 and healthy but hardly athletic.
Obviously, the flat terrain in Amsterdam is conducive to cycling but with the advent of inexpensive e-bikes dispensing with the auto for short trips is practical even hilly cities (like the one I live in in Western NC).
I've not used my car for any trip less than 5 miles since I bought an e-bike 4 months ago.
6
I hear all of what has been said, but let's bring it down to a practical level. I am retired and not wealthy, but to help, several years ago I bought an older hybrid as my transportation. The maintenance is starting to go up and the air conditioner recently stopped working. I was told by my local mechanic that they can't touch the air conditioner, it is dealer only. I was informed at the dealer that the air conditioner is part of the system that keeps the batteries cool (so they don't catch fire) and it will be north of $2,000 to repair. Further, the battery pac is nearing the end of its life and replacement costs will be $5,000 +, and 3 weeks to order to new battery pac. If it is not done, the car could die on the road and will not restart.
I can't afford to be environmentally responsible, I will be replacing my hybrid with a used small gas powered car and will never buy a hybrid again. If my experience is typical, it will be a problem because there are many times the number of average people than there are wealthy. Based on these maintenance costs, I expect people will keep their older dirty cars, until they die and can't be repaired. It is too expensive both in up front costs and on going maintenance costs to own a green car for any but the wealthy.
7
@Bruce1253
I think you should be commended for the effort. It is a technology that had been challenged from the beginning.
I recently test drove some hybrid cars, 2 smaller models and was told that one was soon discontinued and the other even with the rebates too expensive for my income level. Wishful thinking.
2
@Bruce1253 have you considered not having a car at all? With public transportation, taxis, Lyft, etc, you can get anywhere and you might even save money in the long run. No repair costs or upkeep, no insurance and a lot less stress. Driving is a hassle. I don't see as well at night anymore. Let someone else deal with it.
7
@Bruce1253
I'm retired too. I live in a sprawling city but I hardly ever need to go out of town. In 2017 I found a 2012 Mitsubishi i-MIEV electric-only car with only 25,000 miles on it on line for $6700, had it delivered to a local dealer (Carmax) for $275, and bought it on the spot. It has a short range, about 60 miles average, but in every other respect it's a marvelous car. It cost me an additional $500 to set up a level 2 charging station in my garage. It gets me everywhere I need to go.
6
I live pretty close to Charleston (SC) and simply can't understand why they don't just close the downtown area to cars entirely. It's small enough for a moderately healthy adult to walk from one end to the other in an hour, and transportation needs for nonresidents could be met entirely by public transportation. Exceptions could be made for commercial vehicles and residents on certain streets, as in the European cities I've seen implement versions of this. Unfortunately, Americans' petulant "don't tell me what I can't do attitude" precludes this happening here.
28
Something I'm surprised not to see in this article or in the comments is the idea of making neighborhoods self-contained. People use cars to run errands that take them all over the areas in which they live. If their neighborhoods are self-contained, i.e., the grocery store, the coffee shop, the dry cleaners, etc are all within walking distance, people will walk. There is a site called Walk Score which measures this. You would be surprised how few cities qualify for a high score. A lot of this is due to zoning. If the zoning is mixed use zoning, the self-contained neighborhood can exist and many people won't use their cars because they don't have to.
20
@Anita but will they walk? I don't drive, so generally walk everywhere, but my friend drove to the grocery store less than half a block from her house to get milk. I was taken aback, but as she said, drivers drive.
3
@Anita I agree. This is, in part, a land use issue. If we can begin to locate housing closer to jobs, and to transit stations, we can reduce the need for long and frequent car journeys. We also know that most people prefer places that are more walkable, which makes these places more desirable for real estate investors and developers. Reforming our land use and development regulations to foster these kinds of communities is an important element of reducing carbon emissions and air pollution, and creating more vibrant, safer, and healthier cities.
4
@Karen Dixon
It is astonishing how unwilling many Americans are to even consider going anywhere without their cars. My sister used to driver her daughters 2 blocks to their school in mild central California. This required loading and unloading all of her day care kids, too. Total waste of gas, time, and a missed opportunity for the kids to get a tiny bit of exercise.
Getting people to walk, bike or take transit will take a cultural shift. I have been car-free many times in my life, most recently 6 years in Denver, CO, and it's great.
8
One measure that does impact the number of vehicles on the road is changing how large corporations locate themselves. ExxonMobil in Houston built a huge new campus north of the actual downtown Houston area; the company chose the location (The Woodlands) with emphasis on availability of living areas (communities) for employees. That is, there is a large suburban area that is very attractive to workers by including schools and shopping within the community; this infrastructure was already in place, it just needed a company that was "mentally ready" to commit to building a large but workable work campus that included commitment to having workers within short commuting distance. Yes, many employees had to relocate; but the isolated and separate business locations combined into one new location made business more productive and interactive, with less time on the road for most everyone.
2
The underlying problem is the world's third rail: overpopulation.
Until it's addressed head-on, every proposed solution is an after-the-fact bandage trying to stanch the bleeding.
32
@Taz THANK YOU for raising this point -- which is key also in discussions about the availability of affordable housing. (Speaking of which: the *true *cost of housing must take into account transportation costs. That is, if you live far from work or other routine destinations, you should add the cost of that longer commute to your monthly/annual housing costs.)
4
According to UN predictions, world population will level off at around 11 billion people. As people move out of extreme poverty, and as women are educated, they have less children. Details here: https://www.gapminder.org/answers/how-did-the-world-population-change/. We need to plan on a world population of around 11 billion, and plan transportation infrastructure accordingly.
3
@Taz How would you address the overpopulation problem "head-on"?
1
While air pollution is an important issue, the larger impact cars have is how they change our relationship to the land and to each other. Switching the world over to solar-generated electric cars still means vast suburban sprawl taking over local farmlands, global supply chains and resource extraction that privilege a few mega corporations, and the breakdown of neighborhoods and civil society as we all scoot around in our little glass bubbles bought on credit. Cities and streets are public spaces for people. All cars, air polluting or not, are guests to be restricted and deprioritized.
12
And what did my city, NYC, do? It let it's subway system wither to the point of collapse. It let ride-hailing auto choke city streets. Then it subtracted huge amounts of public street space for bikes for the few, young people who are brave enough to risk life and limb on chaotic urban streets. In short, we have visible signs of informed, rational policy.
And this, people, in a liberal city.
Yes, I'm a liberal.
I will also call out my own tribe.
New York City: fail.
15
@John L It’s not a particularly NYC problem, it’s an American problem. We party like it’s 1999 and we rarely appropriate qualitative investments in our education system, infrastructure, clean air and water, climate(!), etc. We are like people on a sinking ship that wait till their heads are under the water before they act.
7
@John L In short, we have NO visible signs of informed, rational policy.
4
@John L It’s a clear sign that politicians are doing nothing. Properties are selling for huge amounts, increasing every year, and still there’s very little being done at the mta. The bike lanes are great. I only wish they’d block them off so that peds don’t keep walking into them. Cars too.
1
It appears that most of these comments reasonably address pollution issues by advocating use of public transportation, walking, and bicycling. I did not see any attention being directed at the needs of the handicapped and elderly who need some transportation to get groceries, make doctors' appointments, and just plain have a reasonable quality of life. The needs of this set of city residents need to be addressed.
14
@Tom K
Of course. In cities which have, effectively, banned private car use in the their centre (such as Oslo, which I know well) those with disabilities or the frail elderly have the option of a permit on their car. Or they use a taxi if they are not able to use public transport which, by law, has to cater for them. In this way their needs are met and the rest do not have to put up with congestion and pollution from the many who are perfectly able to take public transport, cycle or walk. 50% of Copenhagen residents cycle every day to work or wherever. Many US cities could manage this but I can see there is no will at all.
15
@Tom K
There are certainly people who need vehicles to get around, however, consider the fact that in places where bicycling is very commonplace, you will find people of all ages and abilities using bicycles. Someone who cannot walk well might be able to pedal a bike, bikes can be modified to carry crutches or even wheelchairs, 3-wheeled bikes offer great stability. Unless you are racing or climbing lots of hills, once you get rolling, cycling is quite easy and doesn't require you to be fit or athletic. Plus, electric bikes open up all sorts of possibilities.
Check out this blog for a bunch of great examples and photos:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2011/06/pain-and-pleasure.html
1
Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, ride hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft are undoing any gains that the cities are making and are cannibalizing mass transit.
26
@Roger Demuth -- the mayor here is working to impose an extra fee on those rides when it's a single rider moving between downtown and some well-off nearby neighborhoods that have plenty of transit options.
Uber's fighting it with disinformation. One column in the SunTimes featured a south side pastor calling it an attack on his neighborhood, and claiming wild things like it would make it harder for - one example - a mother to take her child to a doctor.
In reality, the new tax structure would REDUCE the ride tax to/from his neighborhood, and the new fee wouldn't affect rides with two people, like that mother and child.
Rideshare addressed some deficiencies in how cabs worked, but then took a wrong turn and clogged downtown and wealthier areas, making traffic worse, hurting full-time cab drivers and putting little money in drivers pockets.
8
@b fagan
Is it just possible that the ride hailing companies are filling a need, and that is why there are so many on the streets? Would you rather have people buy cars with their huge life cycle carbon foot print, than use a ride hailing company? Perhaps working with the companies and others, to smooth out the problems attendant with a new technology would be a better solution?
1
@Bruce1253 - re-read my post, especially the end. I don't suggest banning them. Regulation is necessary, in large part because these "disruptor" companies show a healthy disregard for acting for the public good rather than the top stockholder's good.
Rideshare fills needs cab companies neglected. Hurrah. But in Chicago, we are seeing those able to splurge on rides get off of our transit systems and contribute instead to traffic in our core area. Many of these riders already don't own cars, so it's adding to, rather than fixing, the problem of cars downtown.
So regulations are needed, and to your question about working with the companies might be worthwhile, but Uber is spreading disinformation. They, particularly, set an example of companies that are willing to lie, cheat, steal to enrich themselves (not their drivers).
3
Cars need not be banned outright. Just create a virtuous cycle of improving public transport and cycling/walking infrastructure while acknowledging the true cost of accommodating cars in dense urban cores, thus naturally leading to driving becoming less desirable, and other forms of transport gaining in popularity and reliability.
I live in the center of a very old city. Years ago, the city government severely restricted cars in the center, made parking prohibitively expensive, totally altered the flow of traffic to focus on getting cars out of rather than into the city with a minimum of crossing traffic, and turned streets into pedestrian zones in the very heart of the historical center. Many predicted Armageddon, even that the city may simply cease to exist entirely.
Instead, the city has adapted and became not just healthier but far more pleasant to live, as well as visit. The fact that parking is a nightmare means I do not even try, and I rarely need my car which is parked on the outer boundary of the city center close to freeways. Shops and businesses have adapted to accommodate more cycling and pedestrians, and grocery stores have become more numerous and more dense. Shops are more diverse and more numerous. Tourists leave their cars at the edge of the center (cheaply) and take good frequent public transport the last 1-2 miles. Public transport and cycling infrastructure is slowly improving, and a critical mass of citizens and politicians want the trend to continue.
34
Two words:
Remote Work
Go to any traditional office building and you will see hundreds of employees sitting in front of computer screens performing a job that could be done from their residence.
Meetings can be conducted just as easily with applications like Skype, GoToMeeting and dozens of other options.
It is absurd that in 2019, companies and businesses are still insisting that their employees find a way to get to the office (usually by driving).....just so they can sit in front of their work computer.
15
@John
Also there are satellite office workstations that are becoming popular. These can provide for meeting rooms off site. There was a recent article about a 4 day work week and the surprising increase in productivity. The 5 day work week on site should be a thing of the past, like the dodo bird. That one day of less commute time would already have a significant impact if physical activity was encouraged on that fifth day instead. The added benefits to mental health as well which would translate in healthier employees. Plus plus.
4
@John Please remember that not all work is done at computers. Sometimes people actually must regularly work in the *real world.*
5
@John
Won't happen. Managers want people onsite to monitor them. Also there are security issues, and rightfully so since personal information is often involved. Go onto dice.com or any other job site and see that the number of computer tech jobs that allow remote work are a very small percentage, and many that are flagged as such are actually just "remote possible" or require office time so that it still has to be a local hire.
Until such time as our politicians are committed to providing public transportation as a cheaper, faster, and enjoyable alternative, cars will continue to clog our streets and highways. Electric vehicles might do something to curb pollution, but traffic on the streets will not go away.
10
@gordon Politicians must know that constituents support such measures before they will take action. It is WE who must demand more public transportation. It is, of course, rather a chicken-egg situation: Many people do not take public transportation because it is too inconvenient, and it won't become more convenient until it reaches a certain mass use.
4
You think electric cars cut down on pollution? Where does the electricity come from? Mostly from inefficient fossil fuel burning electric plants.
Inefficient? ConEd loses 60% of the electricity that it generates in the process of delivering its product, electricity, to the customer. What other industry would stand for that?
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/realestate/commercial/25cogen.html
See 7th paragraph.
13
@MIKEinNYC You think power plants are inefficient? Well the mini, portable power plant under the hood of your car is incredibly inefficient. It's best at creating heat, not electricity. But I do agree that electric cars are not the answer, the wear of tires ends up in the air and breathing in 'rubber' is terrible for your health. The answer is quality mass transit, bike lanes and walkable neighborhoods
7
@MIKEinNYC - you are wrong about pollution, but thanks for making it possible to once again present the tools people can use to validate emissions from gas vs. electric in their own state.
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html
By the way, the very mechanical powertrain of a gas/diesel car is very inefficient - losing most energy as heat. "What other industry would stand for that?"
Even in the very few states that still use mostly coal, conversion to electricity and using it in the far more efficient electric power train reduces waste.
Cheaper to own, too. EVs are far simpler, no emissions controls to worry about, and every mile costs less to operate.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/saving-fuel-and-vehicle-costs
Thanks for helping disprove the Koch family's misinformation.
2
@MIKEinNYC I haven't owned a car in decades but recently visited another city and drove a friend's Tesla for a few days. On opening the hood, there's no black, greasy stinking mess of an engine. There's no chemical-filled radiator. No oily hoses and wires. Just a second "trunk," in case you need more space.
The car was smooth, fast efficient, helpful, intuitive, and had awesome safety features.
I'm not going out to buy a car, but driving this one was a very good experience.
2
Haven't the mega-cities simply gotten too big? Driving into them is a nightmare because of congestion. Yet businesses seem to want to heap themselves up on top of one another like turtles climbing onto land. Why don't some do the rational thing and move out of Megalopolis to perfectly fine smaller cities? The internet does exist, you know. Columbus, Ohio does have an airport. Many societal and environmental ills would improve if businesses moved to less expensive areas. Nobody loves to commute for 90 minutes.
4
I have a PM2.5 monitor in my apartment (in Woolwich), and I saw a dramatic decline this summer (2019) from the nightmarish levels that I saw in summer 2018.
3
@Nate Hi Nate, I don’t think you’ll have too many responses to your posting due to general US obtuseness. I don’t think many of us here know about PM2.5 monitors (I looked it up—it measures air quality) or that Woolwich is on the outskirts of metropolitan London. Glad to hear your air is improving! I’m hoping for similar effects when we here in NYC finally implement congestion pricing in 2021.
1
Private cars don’t belong in inner cities period. They take up too much space, are dangerous and ruin the quality of life.
26
I used Maps to travel a few miles across a busy throughfare in Silicon Valley and it came to a 55-minute commute with three switches. The car ride was 15 minutes with traffic.
The ICE car culture is deep and the rich are focused on virtue signaling by switching to electric cars with no regard to thinking about public transportation. It is going to take a cultural shift to achieve livable cities.
9
I currently reside in the centre of a (smaller medieval) city where there are no cars allowed at all -(or only for delivery in the mornings) - and a I only can highly recommend such a life -
It's wonderful!
21
Wishing we could make public transit fashionable. Most people see it as a last resort not a first. That is sad for our planet and our society knowing what we know about how car exhaust affects the air we breathe. Most cars on any given urban highway going in the direction of the downtown core are single drivers in large vehicles. Parking at the destination is usually non existent or stressful to find. Either make the cars more efficient and cleaner if you can't convince the people to buy smaller and above all affordable or put the money towards fancy public transit fit for a king and people will be more interested to take it. Something has got to give. Also I agree with reducing car use in city core. If you are living downtown for culture and proximity of everything than you should use public transit and have one small car or use those car borrowing systems.
6
@Sara Public transit, unless you are going from one very dense location to another, or straight into the city from designated outer areas, takes longer per trip than private car, even factoring in traffic. If you have to drive to a commuter lot and take a bus to the train station and then the train/subway, then maybe another bus to your destination, that is a huge chunk of time, even calculating time spent in traffic. Another minus to public transportation, to which I think dedicated urban dwellers are more accepting, and nobody wants to talk about, is crime. A person spends long periods waiting for the next bus/train and especially if female and/or elderly, is vulnerable to everything from purse snatching to violent attack. Public transportation is not all unicorns and flowers.
3
@smj
I agree that public transit is not modern enough and often not practical that is why it needs to be redesigned and upgraded to todays needs. High speed trains can save a lot of time to make up for the connections losses. Crime and accidents also happens with cars but I understand what you are saying and people prefer their personal space for safety reasons. I am mostly thinking of the regular traffic flow morning and end of day that could be improved. I live with the same limitations as you state and hope to see mass transit improved with bells and whistles for safety.
1
@smj
You are correct that public transit isn't great now but if we commit to funding and supporting it then it will improve. More buses and trains running more frequently on more routes results in it being more efficient than driving, so more people use the buses and trains, which means less crime because we all watch out for each other.
Ever since the steam and internal combustion engines came into existence, trains and automobiles became an integral part of life.
An urban solution of two-wheel scooters or trottinettes, lately trier in France, bas run into much opposition. Perhaps spécial trottinette lanes and scooters propelled by wind and sails, motors driven by solar energy or backpack-nuclear reactors will make it easier to regulate urban traffic and make it less polluting. But there is a political undercurrent to recon with, the deep-seated hate of cars, as symbols of wealth, by all the leftist politicians.
As I was riding, alone, in an Uber on the BQE, I was thinking about the NYC Department of transportation proposal to “temporarily” place the six lane highway on the Brooklyn Heights Promenade while the roads below it were replaced and widened. It must have seemed so logical to them when working on that insane concept.
There was very little traffic, since it was late, and cars were moving quickly south over the new bridges at the Newtown Creek. It all seemed so efficient; so hard to argue against, so comfortable, working well because there wasn’t traffic. But of course there almost always is traffic, making clouds of fumes.
It took far less time to reach my mom’s house in Jersey than it would have on a subway, a PATH train, and a bus.
Mom had fallen and her face was bleeding. Somehow the PATH train didn’t seem like the right solution to my travel problem, even as the driver and I left a cloud of exhaust all the way out there.
5
My small (but dense) city recently added a new "bus only" lane in my neighborhood. It's under a mile long. The controversy and shouting has been rough.
But I had a really nice bus ride to the train last night. We need to make the right choice the easier and better choice. There will be drama though. Some folks are unwilling to change.
8
I lived for many years in New York's Greenwich village below 14th Street. After 9/11 most automobiles were forbidden to drive below 14th Street . In the brief time this ban was in force the air was noticebly cleaner and fresher and even colors seemed brighter due, I believe, to the absence of cars. One of the joys in Euopean travel is to stroll through the centers of cities and towns in which pedestrian traffic is the norm. I look forward to the time when the internal combustion engine becomes a relic of the past and all vehicals are pollution-free.
14
NYC can do much more to curtail pollution. Educate drivers to stop idling their engines. Educate the police to enforce the existing 3 minute idling law, and change that law to zero idling time. People don't realize the enormous amount of toxins they are spewing into the air by idling. Impose stiff fines for idling engines. Provide incentives for driving electric vehicles. I applaud the electric charging stations I've seen near Tube stations in London. Congestion pricing in NYC will help, but, C'mon NY --you can do better.
3
@an observer
Not to mention all the gas they waste while idling. My understanding is that with modern cars, idling for more than 15 seconds wastes more gas than turning the motor off and restarting.
These ideas, although all worthy, are temporary band-aids that do not solve the problem - until a carbon tax is added to reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, markets will drive continuing/ expanding use of these underpriced resources and the negative impact on air quality and global temperatures
17
The self-driving electric car, that can be summoned like a taxi, will replace the personal automobile within the next 25 years.
These cars will be able to communicate with each other and a central computer in order to plan routes and eliminate traffic jams. People will look back at the gas powered automobile age, with it's 40,000 American deaths per year, as a barbaric time.
7
@Andy S. And that will solve the congestion that makes life so unpleasant in cities. Oh, wait, maybe they could fly too?
1
Cities next need to figure out other ways in which to move around tens of thousands of people each day who have left or wish to leave their cars at home. I moved from Chicago with quite a fine public transit system to Denver which is sorely lacking in public transit. I end up driving everywhere now, which is very irksome because I’ve experienced good public transit. I already know about our light rail system, it is extremely limited.
7
@Kimberly at least when I lived the bus system was quite good. Public transit is not just rail, and I think many people (not referring to you) still think of busses as dirty or more for poor people, which is too bad. This coming from someone living in LA without a car.
1
For us in Colorado, the big issue is that we are unable to invest in public transportation because of TABOR. For example about 60,000 people commute into Boulder everyday along the US-36 turnpike. The vast majority of those people drive cars because there is a single bus that stops along the corridor. That bus holds maybe 100 people and comes every 15 minutes and is generally late. That is 800 people during the rush hour. which leaves the vast majority of people in cars. A large upfront cost to build a light rail along this route would have a dramatic effect on carbon emissions on the front range. However voters have made it clear they would rather receive $40 a year more in the tax refund then make an investment into infrastructure and quality of life for future generations
24
Folks, look to the Netherlands with their excellent urban planning for bicycles and well-thought out car routes. They fell out of love with cars a long time ago and are leaders in progressive planning.
40
@Birdygirl
The irony is that in spite of how awesome Amsterdam is for mass transit, bikes, etc, Centrum is still filled with cars. That should tell us how hard cars are to get rid of and how much practical value they hold.
6
@Mobocracy
So why is that I wonder? Are the cars smaller at least?
@Birdygirl - Amsterdam is flatter than flat, and its weather is more moderate in both summer and winter than many US cities. You can take every car off the streets but that doesn't fix hills, subfreezing cold, ice and snow, or sweat-drenching summer humidity.
And, nobody who touts bicycles as the complete solution to urban transportation seems to understand they are making a very ableist and ageist statement. Transit improvements are a better investment that can serve all citizens.
5
If there were no or limited cars in city centers, that has the benefit of making busses far more efficient and attractive. Plus there are very successful all-electric bus rollouts going on across the world.
10
What about a real improvement on clean public transportation? That, with sidewalks and bicycle tracks. That will surely improve our air quality, will keep us healthy and reduce our need to own a car. In my city, the sidewalks are sparse and the public transportation do not reach the suburbs, with the exception for park and ride. Buses that ride only to downtown Houston. We just need to change our mindset, aim for a healthier way of life and care for our environment. I would love to walk to my job, it is only a mile and a half away, but how can I if there are no sidewalks?
15
@Aguadejamaica
I'm here in the Texas Medical Center and I live two miles from my office but the sidewalks are broken chunks of concrete, there is poor lighting and the drivers ignore bike lanes and pay little attention to pedestrians. It's a real shame.
Another concern is the staggering heat starting around March and ending in October. It's awful arriving to work drenched in sweat. Even waiting for the light rail or bus can be very uncomfortable.
Add to this the horrendous air quality. When my asthmatic husband opens our front door he frequently needs to use his rescue inhaler.
1
Besides all ecological aspects cars for transportation of people in densely populated areas is economic nonsense: for the transportation of (most of the time) one person (=50-100 kg) a vehicle of more than 1000 kg is used. A person needs about 2 m² to walk, 1 m² to stand. a car standing still needs 10 m² or more, driving demands 30 to (guess) 100 m² (depending on speed). Even a car that is used a lot will be parked for most of the time. In any factory capital equipment with such bad rating would be replaced immediately. In this logic replacing cars would release resources and increase the productivity of cities and the national economy. Unfortunately I live in a country that is clinched to a different set of beliefs: cars are the holy grail of our economy.
8
@Ekkehard
Cars and oil. Two industries that are in need of modernization and modification.
1
Last month we visited Florence, Rome, Istanbul and Athens. In all of these cities air pollution was bad and traffic jams were not just common but ubiquitous.
The growth of and migration to major cities means that traffic jams and air pollution will increase unless drastic political measures are taken; and I don’t have much hope that politicians will be brave enough to do what needs to be done.
As a result of the media coverage of these problems—and our recent travels—we have crossed off our future travel list Beijing and the other huge Chinese cities, London, New Delhi, Rome, Athens and Istanbul. We like Florence so much that we may give it another chance.
4
@Mon Ray My wife and I were just in Florence last spring, and it was AMAZING. Well worth the trip. And the city center is "car restricted", I think just delivery vans, taxis and the like. Still traffic but very walkable.
Another contributing factor to overall tailpipe emissions in the U.S. is the proliferation of drive-through fast food stores. In sunny dry Albuquerque, New Mexico, lines at drive-throughs are frequently 5 - 10 minutes long, with engines running non-stop. Among the favorite drive-ups: Starbucks, which changed its business model from comfortable coffee shop to fast food drive-through. Searching for facts and figures on the contribution of these convenience polluters.
14
@ABQ Sue Minneapolis recently attempted to tackle this problem with a moratorium on new drive throughs. Very interesting policy that I will watch closely. However, there is something to be said for a reduction in the amount of space dedicated to parking in our cities. I wonder if drive-throughs actually help with that... Ultimately, I would far prefer walk/bike-through to drive-through!
@TranspoEngineer It will have no effect in Minneapolis. There's almost no growth in the fast food franchise area within Minneapolis proper. Existing locations can keep their drive-throughs and this will probably increase their value if the owners decide to sell out. I don't recall any limits on turning over an existing drive-through enabled property to another business (like flipping from KFC to Taco Bell).
Mostly real estate economics would limit drive throughs anyway. In the denser parts of the city, it's a lot of expensive real estate dedicated to a limited slice of the customer base, and I doubt there's enough of a business model for someone to consider buying a lot of land just to accommodate a drive through.
@ABQ Sue
For a long time I have counted idling vehicles in drive-through lanes as my husband drives us across town. (Don’t scold: there is no public-transportation way to get to several spread-out places in a few hours in Albuquerque.) Starbucks’ drive-through at Broadway and Lomas is constantly stacked with cars. Starbucks closed its Nob Hill walk-up location to move several blocks west for a brand-new drive-through location across from UNM.
Albuquerque needs a moratorium on all drive-through businesses. I’d be very interested in your research to present to City Council and Mayor Keller.
1
Must cities wait until they are in an air quality crisis before taking preventative measures? The technology is available now to phase out internal combustion engines. We need hard and fast deadlines established to phase out the manufacture of such vehicles, and firm deadlines to get them removed from service. In the USA we need to begin an intense program for high speed rail across the entire country supplemented by regional light rail systems. It should be on the same scale as the Interstate Highway system. In fact, much of the Interstate Highway System can be used for right-of-way, either with monorail or underground systems.
9
@John Warnock
I agree that train travel could gain more ground. They carry a lot of people reach high speeds to wiz people faster than their cars. The more people that commit to taking them the cheaper the travel becomes. Incentives could be offered. There will always be trade offs when you compare transport methods but one thing for sure would be the gain of cleaner air if regular work traffic exhaust was reduced and replaced with some electric train travel options.
2
Cars need to go... or at least be relegated to emergency or essential roles only. The notion that everyone should be able to own and drive a car is insane. Just imagine the amount of resources that go into a single automobile... the metal, the plastic, rubber, and that's not even considering the fuel and oil that are burned. For each days driving, each cars engine can power a small house. And most cars on the road transport one person at a time, including large SUV's that can accommodate 8 people. Insane. The US is in the thrall of cheap gas and relatively easy loans for car purchases. This needs to end and these monetary resources need to go into expanding and updating mass transit. The excuse that the US is to large a country for such a conversion is nonsense. Mass rapid transit requires an initial large investment, not too different from large investments in the highway system or the trillions spent on weapons systems. This needs to happen; the era of the individual driver is gone.... deal with it.
9
I am surprised not to see more discussion of bicycling.
In the time I spent reading this article, while sitting in a mid-sized Dutch city that in the 1970s adopted the rigorous decision to banish most automobiles and promote bicycling -- where today more than 60% of all trips occur via bicycle, even in the most miserable winter months -- I have seen from my window a DHL-delivery bike with package trailer, a pizza-delivery e-bike, a whole slew of parents bringing kids back from school on 'bakfietsen' and bikes with child-seats, a student moving a sofa on a bike (with two of his friends atop the sofa), two people returning by bike from IKEA, two policemen on bikes, the postman on a bike, dozens of other bicyclists, and one car (the parking meter car). I even biked to the hospital to deliver my children.
It took a ton of political will and perserverence to push the pro-bike/pedestrian, anti-car measures through in the 70s, and to keep everyone walking or biking (only 2% of people don't own a bike) -- but the city is incredibly liveable and much healthier because of it.
I appreciate the challenges of developing similar pro-bike programs in much less dense US cities, but some aspects are certainly worth adopting and learning from.
105
@American
Excellent post. Bike lanes may be the best public transit investment to make. In less dense American cities they are still very attractive because fewer trips are walkable and there is plenty of excess roadway to create dedicated bike paths.
In these same cities, wildly subsidized transit systems seem to take on a life of their own. Empty and near-empty buses are common sights on many routes and much of the ridership is artificially inflated. That money would be much better spent on dedicated bike lanes.
10
@American what city are you in?
@American Great post, American. I lived in Amsterdam in the 90's. I commuted to work by bicycle. We had one car for the family, which we didn't use very much -- mainly for vacations, or trips to Albert Hein or Ikea, which were outside the city center. When my second son was born, I took my first son to meet him at the hospital by bike, sitting in a handlebar seat! It was such a livable city, and when the bike got stolen (more than once), there was excellent tram or bus transportation to take us anywhere in the vicinity.
It's frustrating to see how our cities work when you have seen how things work elsewhere, and work very well. Here in the US, we put up with pollution, congestion, no green spaces, and absurd times to get from point to point, and we think these are new problems that nobody has every dealt with.
11
Today's electric cars are mostly a bad idea in most of America. Many of us tend to drive a lot, drive far or simply not need a car at all. They are, however, a great idea for highly congested cities and necessary for congested cities in countries with a high percentage of diesel use or emissions cheating.
Given how difficult and risky it would be to try to get most people out of cars in most countries (and not be voted out of office for doing so), switching to electric for personal use vehicles and a mix of elecrric, fuel cell or CNG for high-use fleet vehicles would likely be far more effective.
Even the progressive Canadian prime minister has the same view as West Virginia's Joe Manchin - no one is going to discover a valuable energy source and just leave it in the ground. When the only appeal is to climate change, it is, so far, very hard to get people to take bold action. Local air quality is much more likely to get the necessary, pardon the pun, high concentration of political support.
This is one area where America can demonstrate leadership by helping others lead.
@Alan
Cars are problematic in more ways than just the emissions they produce. Drivers are a constant danger for pedestrians and cyclists. Electric cars won't solve traffic congestion. The parking minimums that come with a car-centric city drive up housing costs for everyone. The need for parking everywhere spreads everything out and makes it more difficult to walk, bike or take public transit to get around, making it necessary for everyone to own a car. Roads and highways also take up significantly more room than other forms of transportation. Higher density development is constantly being strangled by NIMBYs worried about traffic and parking.
Congested cities are congested because there is no realistic way to have even medium density development and have everyone commute by car. The solution is not cleaner cars. The solution is to replace as many cars as possible with public transit, walking, cycling or some other type of transportation that moves more people for the amount of space it occupies.
3
@Alan Some energy sources are not worth digging out of the ground. They are too polluting and inefficient. Wind and solar are already cheaper than coal, and competitive with natural gas. Oil is used primarily for motor transport fuel, and motor transport is cheaper and cleaner with electric vehicles. This is free market at work. We’re not obliged to maintain legacy industries with vast public handouts when better alternatives are becoming available.
1
Here in the U.S., cleaner burning fuels and more efficient engines have resulted in downward trends in certain pollution categories. But soon, continued increases in total miles traveled will counter that. Factor in electric vehicles and maybe there is some hope in the long term in regards to air pollution Air will, however, likely get dirtier before it gets cleaner, and we still have congestion. The fix is in better land use planning and convenient, efficient transit – both of which are slow in coming, expensive, and take political will.
Here is an idea – privatize an undeveloped transportation corridor somewhere as a pilot project and let capitalism take over. They would put a price on people throughput and find the most effective way to move people. Single-occupant cars quickly get priced out as the least efficient. Then, we could expect the best thinkers in technology and engineering would get really creative. What would Google do with a blank slate and an opportunity to build transportation between LA and San Diego? Obviously, some areas would be more suitable than others, but what would Amazon do with a chance to connect Austin and San Antonio in a new way? How would venture capital look at such an opportunity? Looks like a high-growth market to me. I’m just sayin’…. we’ve got to be thinking out of the box here.
5
If all females around the world would of had access to, used birth control, and limited their child bearing to 2 children like I did 50 years ago, we would of still had only 3.4 billion people on earth, had developed vehicle emission control devices on all vehicles, etc. and we wouldn't have the gridlock, pollution, etc. Now, the population is 7.8 billion people wanting a modern life with flying in airplane which is the most polluting thing any individual can do, have a vehicle, which is often a pickup in this country, and have newer digital devices, and larger televisions made in Asia, and transported around the world by cargo ships, that are polluting. I think the battle is lost until all females limit their child bearing to 2 children, and men don't go around fathering a half dozen or more children as well.
23
@MaryKayKlassen Exactly, except I recommend doing what I did 40 years ago and limit to 0 children. This should be the norm until the numbers drop dramatically. This would solve SO many problems!
8
I hope that Chicago will be the next city to consider anti-pollution measures. At peak times, the roads become completely congested. The pollution is bad for everyone and the people in cars aren’t even getting anywhere fast. Public buses then get snarled in car traffic (they’ve worked on this a bit downtown, with some bus lanes, but there is still the rest of the city). We have a major interstate that runs north-south right past the downtown, and that gets completely congested too, only adding to the pollution. We need to establish congestion pricing, electrify and expand all bus routes, and add to the growing bike infrastructure.
6
Cars in cities do not only cause air pollution: they also generate noise pollution and traffic-related injuries and fatalities. They monopolize large areas for just a few users, areas that could become parks or pedestrian spaces. More parks and squares means more opportunities for connection and coming together in civic life. Overinvestment in automobile infrastructure causes public transport to be neglected. In short, drawing down the number of cars in urban areas will be a hugely beneficial.
84
@Chris Exactly, even electric private cars don’t belong in inner cities for the reasons you mention.
11
Very sensible move.
If we made a serious effort to charge people (and businesses) what things really cost, we would go a long way to making this a more livable planet. Quite a number of those underpriced things and activities involve fossil fuels and pollution. The best thing about building in pollution charges is that the improvements would happen automatically, as these data show.
Not paying the full costs of pollution is just one more way average people have subsidized the rich owners of the oil companies and their bought-and-sold lackeys, the politicians. For decades.
48
Too bad Berlin, Germany, is not mentioned.
Like all German cities, Berlin has an extraordinary high level of NO2, caused by the diesel engines of German Too bad Berlin, Germany, is not mentioned.
Like all German cities, Berlin has an extraordinarily high level of NO2, caused by the diesel engines of German vehicles from VW, BMW, Mercedes, etc. You smell the difference if you travelled before to the sea or if you come from a city like, say, New York.
As diesel cars are in Europe more common since the 90's, this is an issue in the cities itself. This level of NO2 is unheard in the USA, and although it is continuously above even the more relaxed German emission regulations, nothing changes. The car industry has even a well-known legal hole that allows higher NO2 emission; the VW diesel scandal was about a device to bypass the American emission regulations, but only because in Germany the same device and practice is, by law, perfectly legal.
A few city administrations tried to block diesel cars from downtowns. However, the huge car lobby in Germany was able to prevent it so far.
This whole NO2 topic in German cities is interesting to follow, as any other emission and pollution is generally at a lower level, i.e., CO2. Yet NO2 is more dangerous. And since all German cities are aware of this issue, it is surprising how little happens so far, although the NO2 emissions were before the diesel engine hype in the 90's, thanks to VW and its CEO Piech, rather low.
9
Forgot to mention Paris, which is making serious strides in reducing car traffic and creating clean, green space.
12
@PT All of France is making countrywide strides in reducing car traffic, particularly in cities, through Crit'Air stickers that put restrictions on when and where cars can be driven. Assuming that it's being enforced.
@PT It’s not an omission. Paris does not belong on this list because the Mayor’s high profile quest to reduce traffic and make Paris a “greener” city is flawed.
Firstly, closing/restricting central arteries to 4-wheel combustion vehicles has just moved traffic elsewhere, rendering outer arrondissements more polluted and congested than before. Also, her office has used temporary work-arounds and loopholes to push through initiatives she didn’t have the support/authority to pass, with disastrous consequences (eg. improper/nonexistent tenders for new bike and scooter operators). Plus, closing the Seine riverbanks to traffic and making them pedestrian zones has been a total failure. It has just pushed traffic elsewhere and the Berges are underutilized, because they are frankly unpleasant places to walk, run, or be, as they are basically just big strips of asphalt with no trees, grass, or greenery. Despite recent measures, Paris remains the world capital with the smallest percentage of parks and green spaces.
The only “solutions” the mayor has proposed are to create “roof gardens” on some public and new buildings, which are not accessible to most of the public. Instead, residents have had to put up with 7,000 simultaneous road construction sites, more pavement, filthy streets, and dirtier air.
Hidalgo is good at selling her vision of Paris to the world and the C40. In reality she caters to tourists and the IOC, not the people who actually live, work, and pay taxes here.
2
Tentative baby steps in the right direction.
Real outcome is elimination of all cars, a longer-term process that is underway right now as evidenced by the tentative baby steps.
Except for a small percentage of users (about 8%) driving a vehicle does not pay for it, nor does it pay for fuel or needed infrastructure. Ejecting cars from places where public costs of driving are too high and allocating those costs back to drivers is a reflection of reality rather than a tactic.
What pays instead of driving is borrowing in immense amounts ($200+ trillions in US dollars). Of course driving cannot retire what it generates: the world is steadily bankrupting itself at the same time its air is rendered increasingly unbreathable.
It would be sensible to simply get rid of all of them: along with ruining us they kill over a million ever year. Humans lived without cars until relatively recently. We know how to do it, In the longer term, massive associated costs of our car surplus will do the heavy lifting, regardless of our desires and our incremental management tactics.
9
@steve from virginia Yes stop the madness, cars are a scourge.
Salt Lake City regularly has some of the worst air pollution in the country. Unfortunately, there is very little political will to makes changes and discussions about reducing or eliminating driving are almost completely left to vague messages to "drive less."
15
The public paid and continues to pay a fortune to build and maintain all the streets in big cities. But now there is desire to deny the public the right to drive their car on those streets. The streets will be maintained for use by the wealthy and the privileged as politicians' limos will cruise the streets faster from less traffic.
Denying general use of the streets to regular people's cars will also cause taxes to rise even further since the substantial revenue that politicians take from citizens in the form of parking tickets will fall off dramatically.
7
@Errol
If roads are used less, the public will pay less for maintenance. Perhaps they could use that money saved to pay for parks and affordable housing instead.
There is no right to drive cars on street, nor anywhere else. Every single study shows that emissions are going to lead to catastrophic environmental change if we don't do something. Moreover, and separately, the presence of that amount of cars in urban areas is hugely deleterious to the public health.
The public also pays for mass transit systems, which should be improved instead of making way for more cars. Given the availability of public transport in most cities, using a car is indefensible given the cost on public health and the environment.
Parking tickets are not a substantial source of income for major cities; regardless, the cost can be offset by increased public transport fares and/or congestion charging.
20
@Errol
"The public paid.."
that includes all the people who do not drive and would rather invest their money in public transit than street-choking polluting cars
@Chris
I will put more stock in your arguments when all the big shot and little shot politicians, the judges, the police high officials, and similar privileged people ride only in public transit, and cease driving their cars or being driven in their limos.
2
very good statistics. now we need a vision of future transportation where parking becomes a tail end. vision should consider the following:
1) road/city centric transportation must be reversed
2) light rail and high speed rail must be part of duplicate transportation to reverse the trend
3) all city parking spaces must be relocated around suburbs along light rail/high speed rail stations
4) interstate highway corridors must have provision oftruck parking along with weighing stations
5) autonomous electric vehicles must be introduced to transport people/goods for the last mile (city center/individual home)
6) a complete online real time transportation system for pay-as-you use and online enforcement and payment - minimizing human touch
7) in usa there are 1 billion parking spaces (garage/open space) for 300 million cars - misuse of land
8) only 200 million cars stay parking at one time
9) renewable sources must be deployed in all open parking spaces along light rail/high speed rail corridors
10) such option will help to charge electric vehicles
11) light rail/high speed rail combination will reduce air transportation for short haul reducing pollution by planes
9
Please come to Florida they are in such denial. I wish as a nation we would “come together” and lower the speed limit, if not for Mother Earth the bad behavior driving. However the outsized Individualism is killing our planet.
31
To paraphrase Mitt Romney, "Cars are people too, my friend." In fact, they, like corporations seem to have more rights than people. How much of our open space in a city is given over to automobiles, both for driving and parking? If a driver is blocked by someone double parked at 3AM, he can honk his horn for half an hour with impunity, but if a drunk was banging on a garbage can at 3AM, the cops would be over in five minutes to bludgeon him, and the difference is, the guy in the car is sitting inside the magic chunk of steel.
We just seem to take the whole perverse arrangement for granted and have accommodated ourselves to the automobile rather than the other way around. It's been shown that people who live near areas of constant traffic tend to go outside less often and I've seen this myself. I'm sure there are many other examples, but in Brooklyn we have McGuinness "Boulevard", a dangerous thoroughfare dominated by cars. Despite the number of large developments being built along it, you almost never see a soul. Anyone who ventures outside immediately makes a beeline for a side street, even dog walkers. It's about as inviting as living along the Daytona Speedway.
45
All this is good in theory, but if housing costs in cities continue to skyrocket how will people of lower economic means get to work, or even get around? Congestion pricing is helpful for people who have means. They can decide if they want to use their means on such a resource. But for people with few means it’s just one more hurdle they have to jump in order to live. Combine this with the racial disparity of gentrification and you’ve now got a situation where racial minorities have less freedom of movement than whites. Without significant investing in public transit and other alternative ways of traveling, we’ll just be creating ghettos on the outskirts of towns.
14
@David Terraso
'All this is good in theory, but if housing costs in cities continue to skyrocket how will people of lower economic means get to work, or even get around? '
Light Rail Transit! Buses! Commuter rail! An Amsterdam-eqsue approach to bicycles.
'Without significant investing in public transit and other alternative ways of traveling, we’ll just be creating ghettos on the outskirts of towns.'
Which would seem like an argument for more investment in transit, not keeping private cars as the main method of transport?
Regarding New Delhi:
“There is a real need to expand public transportation in the city...”
Isn't there a problem of "Eve teasing" in the city, of sexual harassment and women being assaulted on public transportation? It's a major problem in India.
As long as public transportation attracts the worst of dysfunctional types, people will choose private vehicles.
11
@Barbara Exactly! I still have a letter to the editor of my city's newspaper I wrote in 1974, when noises were first being made about driving less and using public transportation more, and gas lines abounded. There was a lot of snark about a testosterone based need for howling big engines, etc. as the reasons for our car centric culture. I responded, as a woman, that "far more satisfying than the purr of my car's motor is the CLICK of its door locks."
4
"The judge’s rationale: People need to breathe clean air". - sez who?
1
In all 5 boroughs of NYC all TC licensed cars (yellows, greens, Ubers, Lyfts, and Vias) should be required to be electric.
14
Why is the only use of the word "bus" only coming from the guy in Delhi? Which reminds me. You can't get off at the right station if you are on the wrong train.
2
Some time around the year 2000 I first went to Hong Kong.
Tall buildings rose right from the sidewalks,
creating canyons with motor vehicles running through
and pedestrians on each side.
Long lines of buses paused by the curb.
These urban behemoths had exhaust pipes directed so they
dumped noxious black smoke into the crowds on the sidewalks.
I wondered, couldn't they at least pump that out the top?
3
I just came back to NY from a weekend in Belgium. As a first-time visitor, what struck me immediately was the relative absence of automobiles in the inner cities and how pleasant and easy it was to get around without a car and without cars clogging the roads.
Lots of pedestrians and a lot of folks of all ages riding bicycles (and generally following the traffic rules). Like a lot of Europe, the cities I visited (Brussels, Leuven & Bruges) were built well before automobiles were in use, so I imagine that they would be a nightmare if cars were as ubiquitous as in most US cities.
I'm not particularly a europhile, but I was very impressed. I don't know if the lack of cars in the cities is a result of culture or economics (or regulation since it is Europe), but it seemed to work very well and was very pleasant.
60
@Sean G we were in Toronto and the first thing we noticed was how quiet it was, no honking no cars. No tip jars was the second.
21
@Sean G ironically, I was just reading an article in the Guardianthe other about how Brussels & Belgium lags behind many other W. European cities in public transport, and is known for traffic congestion!
3
@Calleen Mayer Canadian from Toronto exurbs here. Er, what magical part of Toronto did you visit that had no cars? Ward Island? The Distillery District?
And yes, tipping and tip jars. It's always a shock to me when I visit after a decade living in Europe. It's true we don't top as much as our neighbours to the south, usually 10-15%.
The larger problem is zoning. In rapidly developing cities in the US, the formula is the same. City officials and big developers get together and rezone large parts of the city, allowing for new construction of luxury properties.
This forces the working class out of the cities, and creates congestion as people are now forced to drive in from places they can still afford. This also reeks havoc with schools. As families with children are driven from the city. schools close and students are now bussed further away as districts consolidate.
It's human behavior ie greed that causes these problems. Not the fuel are cars run on. When cities focused on people who lived there, instead of attracting corporate h qs, many managed without cars. We've lost a tremendous amount of efficiency in daily life that cities once brought.
21
We don’t need cars. We could run public vehicles on every road at 15 minute intervals every hour of every day for about a fifth of what we spend on personal automobiles. Rural northern WI, Manhattan, John Day OR ... Cars define us - our status, our relationship to power, our fear of the other, our success and failures... it is past time for us to focus our transportation energies on moving people and goods rather than on moving vehicles.
40
Robot electric shuttle busses and ebikes. By using small busses, we can reuse the roads and don't have to lay tracks or dig underground or build elevated rails. With lots of small busses that keep flowing, wait times will be low. Have each bus carry something like 12 people. Assign defined lanes for them with inground electronic support systems so they know where they are and keep people and other vehicles out of those lans. We could even build short barriers (3 ft.) on each side to isolate them with open entry/exit points on each block. Push a button to get one to stop to get on and push a button to stop to get off. They could automatically report to charging stations when their batteries run low. Keep it simple. Then the rest of the roadway could be opened up for bikes and walkers. Still would need lights for the intersections.
This would work and by using dedicated lanes with inground support, we won't have to rely on sophisticated AI for navigation. The technology to do this exists now.
13
@Bruce Rozenblit This is a great idea. Need someone who has some authority (and vision) to run with it.
1
Why are there so many cars in inner cities? One reason is that many white collar office jobs are there. Why do companies still force their office workers to work in centralized downtown office buildings? Today’s communication infrastructure, telepresence capabilities and office tools have made centralized downtown office buildings obsolete. There is no “real” reason that most office workers couldn’t “work from home”.
35
@Ian catton Many offices have an informal social culture that only works in person. I'd hate to give up hearing about my colleagues' projects over lunch, and the juicier office drama over happy hour, and the spontaneous encounters - the smiles and "good morning" and "good luck!" that remind us that we are human beings - to isolate myself at home alone every day.
That's not to say that there's no room for change. Maybe one or two days per week could be spent working from home. Maybe there could be more understanding when someone shows up at 8:20 because they ride the bus and it was running late. Maybe the employer can even chip in for a monthly transit pass, or boost wages to make it more affordable to live within walking distance of work. Downtowns depend on activity to thrive, the last thing we should be doing is pushing their office workers away if we want to cut down on automobile dependence.
9
Mass transit. Mass transit. Mass transit. (and clean solutions for last-mile connectivity) -- that is the only way to go.
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but look at the sheer number of people moving to cities here in India. And we do not exactly have a great record of planned development. The British did some pretty good things in cities like Kolkata and Mumbai, but most of the relatively new stuff is unplanned, ad hoc, and chaotic. We have learned this the hard way - When you make it easier for cars, things only get worse in the long run. To understand this first hand, come to Mumbai and take a cab during peak hours and see for yourself.
And therefore I say: Cars are so twentieth century.
How to get the most number of people around quickly, cleanly and efficiently - that is the question for today and for the future.
179
@dsi Soon mass transit look very different with autonomous driving vehicles. Cities with subways are great and keep the streets freer of vehicles. Surface trains, like Portland has built, are essentially walls to pedestrians and slow when crossing the urban areas.
1
Look to Vancouver's "sky trains" as an alternative to surface congestion. It looked to me when I was there last (2006) as a vision of the future.
3
@dsi Cars are so twentieth century.
Yes.
4
This article actually shows the opposite of its premise: most "cities" are not rethinking their relationship with cars. Some are rethinking their relationship to diesel engines (which the US never went in for) and some to IC engines full stop.
More to the point, the definition of a "city" needs clarification: a congestion charge for central Manhattan tell us nothing about the city's overall transportation priorities or New Yorkers' transportation options. Banning traffic from 14th Street, on the other hand, that's fantastic.
12
Worth noting the increased popularity of food trucks in some cities - and the noticeable emanating pollution.
Yet folks seem accepting of this....
9
@SLM I would argue this is a symptom of the high cost of commercial rent and the demand for reasonbly priced fast food. Neither are going away soon.
1
It's a good article but it focused on pollution. Even if every vehicle in cities instantly were changed to electric, eliminating the pollution, it wouldn't eliminate the congestion. Cars make cities less habitable. More people need to walk, or cycle and public transit needs to improve. Cars kill cities, their numbers must be reduced.
263
@Robert Danley
We don't want clean air, safe streets, reliable public transportation or healthier lifestyles with more physical activity. Next you'll probably say everyone should have access to healthcare or some other crazy thing. /s
45
@Robert Danley
Automobiles and their infrastructure are major contributors to the "heat island" effect, which in the near future, as global warming progresses, will turn many cities into broiling deathtraps during summer months, especially in the global south where the residents cannot afford air-conditioning and electrical grids are inadequate. To remain habitable, these cities will have to ban autos and replace asphalt pavement with green spaces. If we in the rich global north were smart, we would do this now.
9
@Robert Danley
Cars are driven by people. Population must be reduced. Very few paid attention to the “population explosion” and now all the components of overpopulation—massive traffic, homelessness, obscene housing costs, climate change, immigration—are here to bite us in the you know what. Population control is a start, but it will no longer solve the problem. Population reduction is necessary.
11
Vienna, Austria makes it difficult for cars in the city, with one way streets and a requirement to stop for pedestrians wherever they are crossing the road. This is combined with excellent public transport, costing €365 per year for unlimited use.
Vienna is consistently voted the most livable city in the world.
Too many other cities try to make it easier for cars and then wonder why there are more of them, pollution increases and the need for roads makes the city a concrete jungle.
140
@RAD61
Right on all counts. Public transportation, including to airport is light years ahead of any city in the US.
The US should study it
6
Personally I would switch to an electric car but the problem is insufficient charging stations.
8
@JB Outraged And insufficient range.
Every day I don't have to drive my car is a good day.
Besides, all the cities mentioned in the article are basically flat and without any hills. Thus, in the absence of cars and trucks, getting around on bikes, electric ones or conventional ones, would be an easy choice for everyone. Those few who for whatever reason cannot walk or bike, could be served by a fleet of electrical vehicles on demand.
Btw., most Italian cities have banned or restricted cars from their ancient city centers for over 20 years and it has been working well.
59
@xtrimmo
The biggest Italian cities have horrible pollution problems as diesel engines are quite popular there, and even gasoline engines produce a lot of pollution. Yes, in smaller city centers banning cars has worked well. Italy has a marvelous, attractively priced, fast train system for long distance city center to city center travel, that helps reduce automobile traffic.
5
If NYC had a truly functioning transportation system, both in and out of the city, I would be all for banning private cars. Taxi's and delivery vehicles could do their work and quickly exit. Non commercial avenues could be opened up to pedestrian only zones, and the city could become a more more enjoyable place to be. But as our subway, and god awful NJ Transit are not adequately serving the public, people are reliant on their personal vehicles, which pollute and pack our streets. There has to be a better way.
25
@Bocheball Banning private cars would mean less traffic would mean buses went much faster, reducing crowding on the subway. I recently took the 14th st bus across town and it was pretty incredible how fast it went now that passenger cars are banned there.
71
@Bocheball the wrinkle here is that by the time we get a proper subway built, parts of the city will be underwater due to riding sea levels. Unfortunately, we needed to make these improvements 30 years ago.
6
I wonder how the transition to electric vehicles will change thinking about both car restrictions in cities. It will mostly eliminate the pollution issue, although issues with congestion will remain.
The problem with cars is really that they are so much more time efficient than even the best mass transit systems in most places. Only a small subset of people are able to live in an area dense enough and well served by mass transit to not find some benefit to an automobile.
Everywhere else, mass transit is either very marginal, the area isn't dense enough, or there is extreme weather that limits walking or bikes.
8
@Mobocracy While I agree with most your points, I think many more people live in areas dense enough for effective mass transit. But now,imagine if we had invested (or start investing) as much in mass transit, pedestiran, and bicycle infrastructure as we have invested in roads? Or if development codes are rewritten to support denser development? We have created a car-centric society and can create a people-centric one.
118
@Suzanne so much of what you say is true, we, here in Miami, cannot convince our politicians (all the way to the top) that our need for mass transit is immediate. congestion in the suburbs to get to the dense areas where much of our companies are is so bad that all commuting times have doubled and tripled over the last 10 years. living in those downtown areas is unaffordable to most people as well as restrictive living space for families. we are also one of the most pedestrian/cycling unfriendly cities i have ever been in and our accident rates are over the top in that area.
16
@Concerned Citizen
Same as you -- - I stopped riding the "express' bus when they changed my route and it went from 30 minutes to 45 minutes and required a six block walk from my house to the bus stop.
My drive was 20-25 minutes, door to door, and the parking space I had to buy was only $40 more per month than the bus pass. I got back an hour a day that had been spent commuting.
Beijing is the poster-child for the absurdity of automobility. It got along fine with bicycles until recently. Then there was an all-out push for cars, not because they were a more practical mode of transport than bikes, but because it was impossible to mark one's status just riding a bike. Now they have to limit cars or get rid of them so people can breathe. It just goes to show that the embrace and ferocious defense of the automobile has little to do with practical needs, and a lot to do with the owner's (self) perceived status in the world.
144
@Al from PA
Exactly! And Beijing's embrace of automobility also highlights the hypocrisy of Chinese Communist Party, and the duplicity of its attempt to build a Western-style consumer culture. Is there any technology more antithetical to collectivism than the automobile, which promotes an aggressive, individualistic, go-it-alone ethos -- even while drivers are utterly dependent on a vast social and industrial infrastructure?
25
@Al from PA
Wow, them there Chinese drivers must be like children, unable to know what’s best for them. Of course, those decisions are best made, even if from a considerable distance, by Al from PA.
1
@Al from PA : A very insightful comment. Thank you for sharing!
6