North American cities + those around the world needs to shift to car-free.

[ezrarh]

People are concentrating too much on transportation methods in this discussion. Start with the development pattern. Cities can change their zoning codes to allow for more construction - housing, office space, retail, etc. Doesn't have to go from 2 stories to mega scrapers, you just need a good healthy mix of 3 to 5 story buildings with not an excessive amount of parking. Change the zoning laws, and you'll see a development pattern more conducive to pedestrians, bus transport, bikes. That's when you can start arguing for reducing car usage.

For cities with healthy CBDs, they can already go this route of pedestrianizing but the rest of America, it's too sprawled but you can start with filling in places with more housing considering the need. Once you get enough people, frequent bus routes might make sense or bike paths. Maybe some road diets. It's going to be a gradual change for those willing to change. There's also going to be a lot of places that won't change and if we stop subsidizing road construction and the sprawled environment, they'll change on their own or will just fail. There's simply too much car oriented crap to make everything work in the long run.

 

[tangeu]

I worked with a guy who relied on public transportation. It took him nearly 2 hours to commute to work (about half of that walking in between bus stops), when he finally got a car it was about 20 min commute. I can't imagine having to deal with schedules and transfers and all that nonsense, unless public transportation can go from my front door to exactly wherever I'm going when I want to go there I'll keep my car thanks. (Then again, probably none of this applies to me because I also can't imagine living/wanting to live in a city packed in a high-rise like sardines in a tin)

 

[TheBeardedOne]

I worked with a guy who relied on public transportation. It took him nearly 2 hours to commute to work (about half of that walking in between bus stops), when he finally got a car it was about 20 min commute. I can't imagine having to deal with schedules and transfers and all that nonsense, unless public transportation can go from my front door to exactly wherever I'm going when I want to go there I'll keep my car thanks. (Then again, probably none of this applies to me because I also can't imagine living/wanting to live in a city packed in a high-rise like sardines in a tin)

Click to shrink...

That's another thing

They'd have to drastically increase public transportation, which would be very costly and cause lots of congestion, and it would still take longer to take it than to drive in yourself.

 

[Ascenion]

I am in one of the most sprawled cities in U.S (Triad area of North Carolina), it is partly why I dislike people fighting public transportation and sprawl. YES it takes a long time to correct U.S's issue, but you don't correct it by sitting around talking about how impossible it is to correct. Starting somewhere helps. The bus system here does not go far out enough and is not frequent enough. They are moving forward with bike lanes, but it is slow because people do not understand the hidden cost of sprawled cities. It takes a long time, but it can be done.

Bus only lanes help allow buses to move quicker because they do not have to be stuck in regular traffic. HOV lanes work the same way with hopes that not everyone is using it, which most studies regarding HOV and bus lanes show that it decreases time and increases average speed.

Besides I didn't just say bus only lanes, U.S needs to fix their zoning laws to allow for more denser living and actually plan out the development of the city, not just let it keep sprawling out.

Click to shrink...

As a fellow North Carolinian (Charlotte area), you live smack dab in the middle of 3 cities with Winston and Greensboro being the biggest and High Point Being kind of inconsequential. I wouldn't call that urban sprawl. That's like saying Pineville, Monroe and Mathews are the consequence of Charlotte's urban sprawl or that there should be public transportation to say Kannapolis from Charlotte. No.

The main issue for the triad is getting all 3 cities to work together which for the entirety of my life they never have. That's your main issue imo. And also a lot of the issue with some of the US's larger metropolitan areas, they're actually made up of smaller towns that don't agree on the way forward and they stonewall each other, particularly when they exist in multiple counties.

 

[Jasup]

It seems that European cities are better equipped for this as people tend to work, live, and play in the same general area. Things such as grocery stores, retail, and entertainment options are within a walk of your residence, id say akin to how things are in NYC but on a smaller scale. American cities arent set up like that at all. I can only speak for Atlanta and Memphis but everything here is very spread out. In most areas you would have quite a trek to venture to and from a grocery store without a car. I could drop you off downtown but i guarantee the places you would want to visit are nowhere near each other. They are starting to build more of the mixed development type of spaces where you live on the floors above retail spaces but those are few and far between and the type of retail in those developments is usually expensive and trendy as opposed to general daily needs types of stores.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I understand that. And how cities develop comes down to policy and that is something that can be changed.

I'll give you an example of my current home city Oulu, Finland. It's a reltively young city by European standards, a bit over 400 years old. It's explained by the fact that there wasn't much permanent residence in this region until the latter half of the 1500's, so when the city was founded in 1610 the number of people living here was under 400. In the year 1948 the population was about 35 500 whereas now it's over 200 000, this means the vast majority of the city was built after the WWII, there isn't much of the historical city left either as it was predominantly wooden buildings.

Now this growth coincided with the boom of the automobile and with that came the suburban sprawl. Majority of the residents live in single houses. The population density is similar to many American cities (urban density 915.8 sq km / 2372 sq mi). There is a small city centre with a grid layout.

Now, what I perceive the difference being is that here, new suburban developments were designed around suburban cores. These are basically where the supermarkets, schools and libraries are and they have to be reachable by walking or by cycling by all within the area. The street planning empasizes this as the cycleways are designed before the roads. The rule is that although you generally need a car for your commute if you live in the suburbs, you don't need it for everyday tasks. These cores as well as the city centre do have pedestrianized areas for this reason, it's also for safety reasons as it keeps children away from cars when going to school. But even if you're not close to these suburban cores, it is mandated that there has to be a grocery store within a reasonable reach.

Even in a sprawled city like mine, the central pedestrianized core is the prime district for retail. We do have huge hypermarkets and malls too, but even them are reachable by other means than driving. It all comes down to policy.

Because of this, around 54% of all trips are made with private cars (could be less, but you know, suburbs do that), Public transport is pure shit, with 6% of trips made with it. Walking is at 19% and cycling at 22%.

Of course all this doesn't apply when you reach the rural areas.

The message is that while the city you live in is spread out, all the necessary trips within the city don't have to be long. If this is the case, pedestrianizing does work.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

I worked with a guy who relied on public transportation. It took him nearly 2 hours to commute to work (about half of that walking in between bus stops), when he finally got a car it was about 20 min commute. I can't imagine having to deal with schedules and transfers and all that nonsense, unless public transportation can go from my front door to exactly wherever I'm going when I want to go there I'll keep my car thanks. (Then again, probably none of this applies to me because I also can't imagine living/wanting to live in a city packed in a high-rise like sardines in a tin)

Click to shrink...

I'm 1-2 miles from a train and it still takes me 90+ minutes to get to work in NYC

 

[TheWooniestWoona]

As someone who lived in downtown Kansas City for several years, I have several questions about how this would work.

1. If you live downtown, but you need a car due to working or frequently traveling outside of downtown, where do you keep your car?
2. If you have guests staying at your place from out of town, where do they keep their car for the extended period that they're here?
3. If we go with the idea that roads are car-free only some of the time, what happens if you live on one of those roads, but need to drive somewhere during the car-free time? How do you leave?

 

[EnronERA]

you can do this for a few blocks at most in several places in any city, but any more than that good fucking luck. And instead of achieving less cars on the road, there will be just as many cars but they'll just all be going around the obstructions and getting jammed up.

 

[lunarworks]

Never gonna happen with people like this, OP:

 

[Chopchop]

I used to do a 1 hour commute, one way, by car. The same trip was about 2-2.5 hours by public transit.

If you live in a super urban area and work nearby, then going without a car and relying on public transit makes sense. If public transit is good enough, a car is actually cumbersome in very urban areas.

But if you don't live downtown, or work somewhere far away? You need a car because public transit isn't good enough in your area.

 

[TarNaru33]

As a fellow North Carolinian (Charlotte area), you live smack dab in the middle of 3 cities with Winston and Greensboro being the biggest and High Point Being kind of inconsequential. I wouldn't call that urban sprawl. That's like saying Pineville, Monroe and Mathews are the consequence of Charlotte's urban sprawl or that there should be public transportation to say Kannapolis from Charlotte. No.

The main issue for the triad is getting all 3 cities to work together which for the entirety of my life they never have. That's your main issue imo. And also a lot of the issue with some of the US's larger metropolitan areas, they're actually made up of smaller towns that don't agree on the way forward and they stonewall each other, particularly when they exist in multiple counties.

Click to shrink...

Its still sprawled, heavily sprawled, part of the reason those 3 cities sit on top of one another is due to that sprawl. If you can't get to your destination without a car, it is an example of how sprawled out the city is. Unfortunately, so many highways run through the city as well and traffic comes to a crawl during rush hour. They have a bus system, but as I said earlier, it is no where near extensive. They are working on it, so I give them that. The Triad area has a little more than 1.5 million residents together.

I am aware cities and counties stonewall each other (states do it too), that doesn't mean they can't eventually work to fix the issues. Which they actually are, I read awhile ago of studies regarding rail, but I am not sure if they are dealing with issues of zoning.

EDIT: The density of Greensboro which has about 270,000 people with 2,000 people per square mile.

That's another thing

They'd have to drastically increase public transportation, which would be very costly and cause lots of congestion, and it would still take longer to take it than to drive in yourself.

Click to shrink...

This is false, increasing public transportation does not "cause lots of congestion", it is a solution to congestion. It would still take longer because the public transportation needs to stop to let others on/off on top of a slower average speed (because most people speed).

 

[JetSetSoul]

Driving is one of the great joys. You'll have to pry my keys from my cold dead hands.

 

[gutter_trash]

Never gonna happen with people like this, OP:

Click to shrink...

he hates gravy and trains.

 

[Jadentheman]

Unfortunately won't happen in America at least for a while. Even though cities are getting denser and more people are moving back and not needing a car you still have city metros and suburbia to deal with . Especially in the south suburban sprawl is very bad and to get anywhere you need a car. For instance the closest generic store for me is about a 6-7 minute drive, 15min bike ride, 45-50min just on foot. Closest bus station for public transportation that just got installed in my area is a 10-15min drive,30min bike ride, and 1hr 5min on foot per google maps which means it will vary even longer.

I think BEVs and better public transportation like more buses(electric of course)are more suited to replacing cars at least until cities can find a way to stop spreading out and building generic housing which gets so twisted it takes 10min to leave your subdivision

 

[The_hypocrite]

Look at all these policy analysts in here telling people what's feasible instead of supporting it cause it's right.

 

[JealousKenny]

Yes, I understand that. And how cities develop comes down to policy and that is something that can be changed.

I'll give you an example of my current home city Oulu, Finland. It's a reltively young city by European standards, a bit over 400 years old. It's explained by the fact that there wasn't much permanent residence in this region until the latter half of the 1500's, so when the city was founded in 1610 the number of people living here was under 400. In the year 1948 the population was about 35 500 whereas now it's over 200 000, this means the vast majority of the city was built after the WWII, there isn't much of the historical city left either as it was predominantly wooden buildings.

Now this growth coincided with the boom of the automobile and with that came the suburban sprawl. Majority of the residents live in single houses. The population density is similar to many American cities (urban density 915.8 sq km / 2372 sq mi). There is a small city centre with a grid layout.

Now, what I perceive the difference being is that here, new suburban developments were designed around suburban cores. These are basically where the supermarkets, schools and libraries are and they have to be reachable by walking or by cycling by all within the area. The street planning empasizes this as the cycleways are designed before the roads. The rule is that although you generally need a car for your commute if you live in the suburbs, you don't need it for everyday tasks. These cores as well as the city centre do have pedestrianized areas for this reason, it's also for safety reasons as it keeps children away from cars when going to school. But even if you're not close to these suburban cores, it is mandated that there has to be a grocery store within a reasonable reach.

Even in a sprawled city like mine, the central pedestrianized core is the prime district for retail. We do have huge hypermarkets and malls too, but even them are reachable by other means than driving. It all comes down to policy.

Because of this, around 54% of all trips are made with private cars (could be less, but you know, suburbs do that), Public transport is pure shit, with 6% of trips made with it. Walking is at 19% and cycling at 22%.

Of course all this doesn't apply when you reach the rural areas.

The message is that while the city you live in is spread out, all the necessary trips within the city don't have to be long. If this is the case, pedestrianizing does work.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, none of that applies here. The key difference is that in your example the building and planning took place after the policies were set. Here you would need to retrofit everything around already existing very inefficient infrastructure. As weird as it sounds, a lot of the schools here are not within walking distance of any substantial amount of housing. In fact there the primary schools i went to were located in cleared forests, so you would travel down these long winding roads through the woods and then here comes a big clearing with 3 schools. Now you would think that housing would appear next, nope, a golf course. So there is now no way to build housing near those schools without ripping out the surrounding golf course.

And since i live in the south, you get a giant helping of racism in with your infrastructure plans. Its why the best schools and best neighborhoods (even whole counties) have strict no public transportation policies. They want it to be as inconvenient and expensive as possible to live in those areas so the "browns" are less likely to show up. No bus lines is a selling point for the best residential and shopping districts. You think the representatives of those areas are going to vote for increased public transportation knowing the very reason those citizens live there is because of the lack of infrastructure?

 

[Titik]

Yeah, none of that applies here. The key difference is that in your example the building and planning took place after the policies were set. Here you would need to retrofit everything around already existing very inefficient infrastructure. As weird as it sounds, a lot of the schools here are not within walking distance of any substantial amount of housing. In fact there the primary schools i went to were located in cleared forests, so you would travel down these long winding roads through the woods and then here comes a big clearing with 3 schools. Now you would think that housing would appear next, nope, a golf course. So there is now no way to build housing near those schools without ripping out the surrounding golf course.

Click to shrink...

You can rectify this using infill development and changing the zoning. Again, it's not impossible or technically difficult or a problem with money (since denser developments tend to bring in higher returns). The hardest part is the political will to do so and facing the NIMBYs and entitled drivers head on.\\

Look at all these policy analysts in here telling people what's feasible instead of supporting it cause it's right.

Click to shrink...

Yup. All of these changes are possible. Some are very simple fixes and many just require some work. But they aren't impossible.

 

[Deleted member 9838]

People in the US are super lazy and spoiled by affordable cars and gas. No one there is used to walking and relying on your own two feet and public transportation to get anywhere. Basically just NYC does this and it still uses Ubers a lot.

 

[Jasup]

Yeah, none of that applies here. The key difference is that in your example the building and planning took place after the policies were set. Here you would need to retrofit everything around already existing very inefficient infrastructure. As weird as it sounds, a lot of the schools here are not within walking distance of any substantial amount of housing. In fact there the primary schools i went to were located in cleared forests, so you would travel down these long winding roads through the woods and then here comes a big clearing with 3 schools. Now you would think that housing would appear next, nope, a golf course. So there is now no way to build housing near those schools without ripping out the surrounding golf course.

And since i live in the south, you get a giant helping of racism in with your infrastructure plans. Its why the best schools and best neighborhoods (even whole counties) have strict no public transportation policies. They want it to be as inconvenient and expensive as possible to live in those areas so the "browns" are less likely to show up. No bus lines is a selling point for the best residential and shopping districts. You think the representatives of those areas are going to vote for increased public transportation knowing the very reason those citizens live there is because of the lack of infrastructure?

Click to shrink...

You could always move the schools, happens quite often back here. This is also what's happening now in this city, as there has been quite a pushback against the sprawl, it is just too costly. The policy has changed in that zoning for single homes has dropped quite substantially and new developments are built in the empty or underdeveloped spaces within the existing urban area. At the moment, although new suburbs are still built, no new suburban areas have been zoned.

Correcting past mistakes is possible

Sorry about the situation you described in the second paragraph, that sounds very sad indeed.

 

[Deleted member 25709]

My city of Ghent (which compared to US cities is a small town, but it's one of the biggest in Belgium) reworked mobility a year and a half ago. The medieval center was already carfree in parts since 1997, but the pedestrian area doubled in size. The city got divided in zones, which you could only exit trough the circular road around the city (so you can't cross from one zone to the other without going on the circular, and you can't cross the city to the other side with the car, you have to drive around it).

In Ghent deliveries to shops and businesses can be made between certain hours in the car-free zones. Delivery companies can also apply for a temporary allowance to drive into the pedestrian area. Because motorcycles are forbidden, we saw a surge in services like Deliveroo and Uber Eats for food deliverees, while pizza joints and other restaurants with their own delivery service started to use electric bikes more and more.
We also have a start-up company called bubble post, that delivers packages like DHL or UPS does, but uses cargo bikes in cities (in between cities they use electrical vehicles).

You know, businesses adapt. Entepreneurs seek and find new ways to answer new demands.

As I said. Such shake-ups have winners and losers, but in the end, there is a solution to everything.

Click to shrink...

Thanks for sharing this. Cargo bikes completely went over my head probably because I'm used to seeing big delivery trucks. I know that Canada Post here have been using delivery vans which are smaller. I saw a couple youtube videos on the cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands and city workers, plumbers, etc., were able to perform their duties while using a bike to get around. Cargo bikes are definitely a viable solution for these cases.

Edit: I just realized in the first picture in the op has kid on the bottom left using a cargo bike lol.

My thoughts exactly.

Cyclists are much more dangerous I find since they don't obey the laws of the road but want to share it with cars. Police should give out more fines to cyclists, I find they're way too lenient with them in Montreal.

Click to shrink...

To say that cyclists don't obey the road while not mentioning drivers is absurd. I can tell you many instances in which some drivers don't drive properly, but I also know that some drivers obey the rules. You have both sides following the law and also not. I agree that police should give out fines to those cyclists that are reckless and its been happening in Toronto.

Closing a street once a year/once a month to cars is different than closing it permanently. Plenty of cities have tried but the results haven't been good - cars bring their own sense of life to a city. A street that feels busy when pedestrians are limited to the sidewalks can feel barren when they are allowed to walk on the streets. This can lead to urban decay.

Click to shrink...

When you make spaces for people, then people will come. In the op i mentioned street activities so this helps draw more people in and makes a place more lively.

I'm actually a big fan of car free and urbanism. However, even I know the car and suburbs aren't going away. There is too much of a demand.

Click to shrink...

The demand is coming from infrastructure oriented towards car use (Induced demand concept, see LA traffic and highways). It's the same idea from what I said above with pedestrian spaces. Then there's advertising from car companies.

(Then again, probably none of this applies to me because I also can't imagine living/wanting to live in a city packed in a high-rise like sardines in a tin)

Click to shrink...

The American Dream with large square footage of single family dwelling as the only means of spacious living is a myth. Well designed multi-unit residential high rises can be just as spacious as single family dwelling.

That's another thing

They'd have to drastically increase public transportation, which would be very costly and cause lots of congestion, and it would still take longer to take it than to drive in yourself.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, public transportation causing congestion is a tired argument thats a myth as well.

It's also important to consider continued population growth in cities. Keep driving your car and if you think traffic and commute time won't get worse than it is now, you're kidding yourself.

 

[Deleted member 39374]

Driving is one of the great joys. You'll have to pry my keys from my cold dead hands.

Click to shrink...

Your grandkids will think of you fondly when they live in Waterworld as a result of your fondness for vroom vroom car/fossil fuel culture

 

[Kernel]

I live in Mississauga. When I worked downtown the GO Train to Union worked great .

Now it's a 1.5hr bus ride to the office and there's only 2 buses per day in each direction giving me little flexibility . I just reluctantly bought a 2nd car .

The best, quickest solution would be to encourage telecommuting.

It will take forever to expand public transit especially with Beermier Drug Lord in office.

 

[tangeu]

The American Dream with large square footage of single family dwelling as the only means of spacious living is a myth. Well designed multi-unit residential high rises can be just as spacious as single family dwelling.

Click to shrink...

But where would I put my chicken coop? Or the goats I'm looking to get?

 

[Afrikan]

Aaaaah yiiiisss Finally! Someone set it up!

 

[TheBeardedOne]

Driving is something I enjoy, as well. It can be really relaxing. If gas prices weren't so insane, I'd go on some road trips.

City driving? Fuck that.

 

[Deleted member 25709]

Driving is something I enjoy, as well. It can be really relaxing. If gas prices weren't so insane, I'd go on some road trips.

City driving? Fuck that.

Click to shrink...

Road trips, going from city to city or escaping the city to visit nature is understandable.

 

[TAJ]

I delivered around 150 floral arrangements and approximately three tons of other stuff to five different addresses on Saturday. None of it could be done off-hours. I guess you could do that if the customers all happened to live across the street from your business.

 

[Greigor the FellHand]

thats a nice dream and all.

but most of the country, and most cities are not designed to be traveled on foot, not even transportation systems allow for it.

Mega cities are an exception - to a point, but for the most part, almost every city needs cars for basic transportation. states is incredibly spread apart.

and, I'd rather own a car than need to rely on car share services, or "uber" self styled automated cars. no thanks, give me a car I drive.

 

[JealousKenny]

The American Dream with large square footage of single family dwelling as the only means of spacious living is a myth. Well designed multi-unit residential high rises can be just as spacious as single family dwelling.

Click to shrink...

The dream is well alive in the south and midwest. Here people do not want to live on top of one another. We have just reached the point in Atlanta where families will live in townhouses. I know for me not being able to open my back door and walk on a lawn would be a nightmare. Even worse is thinking my kids wouldn't be able to run around freely in our yard, plant a garden, and enjoy our fruit trees, that's not what I want for them.

 

[AndyD]

We saw this in both London and Brussels when we visited, where certain sections of the city, a few blocks of streets and cross-streets were closed for the weekend to all car traffic. In Brussels it turned into a bike-fest, in London, there were kids playing soccer and an impromptu concert. It's doable with city support, even if in small distinct blocks of the city rather than all over downtown.

 

[gcwy]

Thank you, OP. For making this thread. Fuck cars.

 

[Rosen]

With cities around the world becoming more urbanized and the threat of climate change upon us, it makes sense to eliminate the private car at the minimum in the downtown cores of cities. Public transportation of course should still run and a few hours of the day can be dedicated to transportation for logistics, services, etc. By eliminating the car, people will live a more healthy and less environmentally damaging way of life while alleviating car congestion as cities continue to grow in population for decades to come. There will also be more foot traffic for businesses and allows likelihood for spontaneous visits and exploration for the things that cities have to offer. The positive experience I had in those 4 hours was unlike anything I've ever had in the more than 20 years I've lived in this city.

Click to shrink...

This sentiment whilst touting the espoused benefits fatally underestimates the actual impact relying on conjecture instead of anything actual supportive other than basic generic statements. The 2014 Davos World Economic Forum estimated it would cost $90 Trillion (US Dollars and no doubt increased) to "modernise" major world cities to car free.

Even real world initiatives such as the Birmingham Walking City don't focus on elimination of the car but the reduction, which again has several issues which others have previously mentioned. If you think that just solely removing the car without decades of infrastructure developments and improvements is possible then you are sorely mistaken, if the US can't even maintain basic road infrastructure or engineering projects then I don't know how you can make this leap.

Same with the dream of everyone not eating meat.

Click to shrink...

Atlantropa called again another hypothetical that relies on hopes and well wishing and big ideas instead of actual executable ideas.

 

[KHarvey16]

We saw this in both London and Brussels when we visited, where certain sections of the city, a few blocks of streets and cross-streets were closed for the weekend to all car traffic. In Brussels it turned into a bike-fest, in London, there were kids playing soccer and an impromptu concert. It's doable with city support, even if in small distinct blocks of the city rather than all over downtown.

Click to shrink...

On weekends.

 

[entremet]

The dream is well alive in the south and midwest. Here people do not want to live on top of one another. We have just reached the point in Atlanta where families will live in townhouses. I know for me not being able to open my back door and walk on a lawn would be a nightmare. Even worse is thinking my kids wouldn't be able to run around freely in our yard, plant a garden, and enjoy our fruit trees, that's not what I want for them.

Click to shrink...

Aren't Atlanta commutes awful, tho.

 

[Deleted member 25709]

This sentiment whilst touting the espoused benefits fatally underestimates the actual impact relying on conjecture instead of anything actual supportive other than basic generic statements. The 2014 Davos World Economic Forum estimated it would cost $90 Trillion (US Dollars and no doubt increased) to "modernise" major world cities to car free.

Even real world initiatives such as the Birmingham Walking City don't focus on elimination of the car but the reduction, which again has several issues which others have previously mentioned. If you think that just solely removing the car without decades of infrastructure developments and improvements is possible then you are sorely mistaken, if the US can't even maintain basic road infrastructure or engineering projects then I don't know how you can make this leap.

Atlantropa called again another hypothetical that relies on hopes and well wishing and big ideas instead of actual executable ideas.

Click to shrink...

Conjecture? please. It's really ridiculous that you think I'm making things up. You don't know me and if you did you would know that I study urban planning. I also never said anything about removing cars without providing new infrastructure. I love how some posters keep filling words in my mouth.

 

[Muu]

Fuck I missed the open cities thing this weekend in my town.

Unfortunately this isn't happening during our lifetime, not because of feasibility but because people have been so wired into the notion that there isn't another way. I live in a college town where you could get from one end of town to downtown in 10-15minutes, bus fare is free (paid for thru a small charge in city water), service is hourly or every half hour and fairly convenient. Bike lanes are everywhere, and there's a sizable population that rides a bike. The major employer in the area is the college, which again, is 10-15mins from anywhere in town with a bike. Despite this, ridership is still at best 7-8% of the population. This clearly doesn't line up w/ the # of people that don't have a choice -- have kids, too old, health issues, work too far, etc. Driving and finding parking downtown can be a hot mess during Saturday morning farmer's market, everyone knows this, and yet people keep repeatedly driving when there's most likely a bus that stops a couple blocks away from their house and takes you downtown.

 

[Rosen]

Conjecture? please. It's really ridiculous that you think I'm making things up. You don't know me and if you did you would know that I study urban planning. I also never said anything about removing cars without providing new infrastructure. I love how some posters keep filling words in my mouth.

Click to shrink...

Well you could have provided some papers to back it up. Funnily enough so did I, it's not exactly a niche subject anymore. You neglected to even mention how to fix these issues though so other than removing cars means improvements.

 

[Keldroc]

This is false, increasing public transportation does not "cause lots of congestion", it is a solution to congestion. It would still take longer because the public transportation needs to stop to let others on/off on top of a slower average speed (because most people speed).

Click to shrink...

Wrong in this case. Cutting off car transportation to business districts or downtown areas simply means that people drive their cars to the point they are forced to abandon them, which means the last stops on any public transit systems just outside the no-car zones become instant congestion areas as people try to cram more cars than those stops were designed to handle into inevitably inadequate parking structures.

The majority of American cities are simply not designed for this kind of procedure, and despite OP's claim that he's not proposing demolition or massive reconstruction, that's exactly what would be required in any major US city to do this at even a baseline level of acceptability to the average commuter's life quality. Los Angeles is in the process of adding light rail, but the east/west lines are still under construction almost a decade later, and they haven't even started on the north/south extensions off those east/west lines, meaning that until 2028-2030, you can get to the beach from downtown, but if you need to go anywhere north or south of the public transit line, you need a car. And in all likelihood, the system will be inadequate by the time it's finished, because it was designed for the passenger load of the era it was proposed in, not the era it was finished in.

While I would love to see US cities reach the level of public transit convenience and efficiency I regularly experience in European cities, it would take razing and rebuilding huge swaths of those cities to make it work. The solution is efficient, clean, self-driving cars. The transit infrastructure is a lost cause at this point.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Click to shrink...

this is spot on

 

[cakely]

Great pictures!

I live in a walkable urban environment (Chicago, Logan Square neighborhood) and I don't own a car.

I'm totally aware what a giant PITA it is for a big city to shut down a road even infrequently for pedestrian traffic. I file it under "nice when it happens" but I know I'm not going to see it often.

Click to shrink...

Great quote, and yeah, the affluent use public transport in cities where it's not an awful experience. The CTA is quicker and far cheaper than a car for a distance of more than a few miles whenever the traffic is bad. Which is most of the time.

 

[Deleted member 4346]

Driving is one of the great joys. You'll have to pry my keys from my cold dead hands.

Click to shrink...

Same. I love driving. My wife and I usually go for a drive every weekend, tearing up miles of country roads on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. It's a guilty pleasure but so fun.

 

[Mr.Mike]

 

[Allforce]

The American Dream with large square footage of single family dwelling as the only means of spacious living is a myth. Well designed multi-unit residential high rises can be just as spacious as single family dwelling.

Click to shrink...

I'd like to see one of these high rises where I can have 3,000 sq ft of living space, 2 car garage, basement, and a fenced in backyard with patio and firepit. Oh and it has to be roughly what I pay for all of that, around $1500 a month.

 

[Deleted member 25709]

I'd like to see one of these high rises where I can have 3,000 sq ft of living space, 2 car garage, basement, and a fenced in backyard with patio and firepit. Oh and it has to be roughly what I pay for all of that, around $1500 a month.

Click to shrink...

Of course you wouldn't be able to have all that in a high rise. I said you don't need the square footage to feel spacious. The configuration of the unit, the paint, the type of lighting, furniture, etc., all play a role in how one experiences space. The American Dream was built around the notion of bigger= better. I also said high rises as an alternative. You also have private balconies in high rises and rooftop green spaces where you can bbq and enjoy the outdoors without leaving your building.

Edit: why do you need 2 parking spaces in multi-unit high rise living? Everything is within proximity so you don't have to use or need a car.

 

[Goldenroad]

I run a painting company. There is literally no way to do this job using public transportation. I'm not hauling ladders, scaffolds, spray equipment, and dozens of gallons of paint to a bus stop, then onto a bus, then carrying it from a bus stop blocks to a job site. It's not a doable solution now, or any time in the future.

 

[Allforce]

Edit: why do you need 2 parking spaces in multi-unit high rise living? Everything is within proximity so you don't have to use or need a car.

Click to shrink...

To go to work? Or the grocery?

Like, I'm ok with the idea of LESS cars but every topic on this conversation seems to be brought up by people who live alone on the 80th floor of their ultra-modern apartment building, ride their bike a block to work and have a grocery store on the way home. And they can't fathom how this isn't the norm. Shit doesn't work like that for the majority of people and it never will no matter how many high-rises you build, you can close down all the streets you want and people are still gonna have to drive SOMEWHERE to do stuff at some point in time.

 

[Marin-Lune]

I run a painting company. There is literally no way to do this job using public transportation. I'm not hauling ladders, scaffolds, spray equipment, and dozens of gallons of paint to a bus stop, then onto a bus, then carrying it from a bus stop blocks to a job site. It's not a doable solution now, or any time in the future.

Click to shrink...

This topic is not about you then. Most cities with a car-free city-center/CBD would still allow businesses (and often residents too) to own and use their car. There are even many examples where total derogation would be given to electric vehicles.

 

[subpar spatula]

Most people are too poor to live in cities.

 

[DOT_mjo]

Would gladly hand my car in if the MBTA wasn't such shit.

 

[TarNaru33]

Wrong in this case. Cutting off car transportation to business districts or downtown areas simply means that people drive their cars to the point they are forced to abandon them, which means the last stops on any public transit systems just outside the no-car zones become instant congestion areas as people try to cram more cars than those stops were designed to handle into inevitably inadequate parking structures.

The majority of American cities are simply not designed for this kind of procedure, and despite OP's claim that he's not proposing demolition or massive reconstruction, that's exactly what would be required in any major US city to do this at even a baseline level of acceptability to the average commuter's life quality. Los Angeles is in the process of adding light rail, but the east/west lines are still under construction almost a decade later, and they haven't even started on the north/south extensions off those east/west lines, meaning that until 2028-2030, you can get to the beach from downtown, but if you need to go anywhere north or south of the public transit line, you need a car. And in all likelihood, the system will be inadequate by the time it's finished, because it was designed for the passenger load of the era it was proposed in, not the era it was finished in.

While I would love to see US cities reach the level of public transit convenience and efficiency I regularly experience in European cities, it would take razing and rebuilding huge swaths of those cities to make it work. The solution is efficient, clean, self-driving cars. The transit infrastructure is a lost cause at this point.

Click to shrink...

Increasing public transportation would not cause an increase in congestion. Now, the ban of cars in certain parts of the city would, but that isn't what they were talking about. They were talking about how poor U.S's public transportation is and the increase in commute time when having to rely on it.

U.S can easily fix it's issues by dealing with the zoning laws that it currently has as many of them prohibit higher buildings and allowing building of housing without locals sabotaging it. It would take decades, just as it took decades for the city to become sprawled, but it has to start somewhere.