City plans to be "car free" in twenty years..

Post Reply New Topic

Personal insults are a "well considered" argument?
Predictably? Then this is just attention seeking troll work and I'm a sucker for biting the bait.

Others here used the word "selfless" as if you were giving up something for others. Its about the complete opposite. You as a citizen get your city back to enjoy it. Its not about being selfless, but about giving yourself the benefit to get rid of the noise, the stinking and the pollution, to raise your own life quality. Not to waste tons of space, that could actively be used by citizens, for parking cars their without use.

So its not about selfless, but simply about personal likings. The one like to live in a sh***y place, and favor to be able to not move their ass more then 5 meters at once. Others favor to live in a place, where you dont need to have your kids on the lash, or simply use the space that is outside, without giving it away to 90% for cars. Its not about giving up, but that more and more people, want to be able to have more space to live then inside of their tiny flats.

Should have been done worldwide 20 years ago.

Many of us like our vehicles and don't see them as burdensome.
A few advantages of personally owned vehicles (POV's) over public transportation:
- You can't haul very much on a subway or bus except for what you can carry. That rules out a weeks worth of grocery shopping not to mention buying bigger stuff that needs to come home (e.g. a new TV, desktop PC, furniture or appliances from a source that does not deliver, home improvement and/or lawn & garden stuff, etc).
- POV's allow you to go where you want to go when you want to go there and not have to be held to a schedule or route. For example; public transportation around where I live does not operate late at night and.
- A POV can be personalized to ones own preferences whereas public transit cannot.
- Not all public transits allow pets to ride, especially dogs.
- Some of us love our vehicles and wouldn't want to give up that attachment.

I love my vehicle I can go anywhere I want without having to deal with other people or having to go an indirect rout to get close to my destination then having to walk

plus it goes offroad

[img][800:692]http://i.imgur.com/yTYfHMt.jpg[/img]

The areas, that they are talking about to be carfree, are normally the core of bigger cities, no rural areas. At these areas public transportation is that well connected, and carspace is that close, that using public transportations, goes ways faster, even if you have to wait 5 minutes for the sub to come. (In the core area of our capital city, the subs drives every 5 minutes during day, and still every 15 minutes during night.) Typical citypets as cats and dogs are as well no prob, as long as you follow certain rules (leashed ...). That typical weekly shopping as it is done in the US is not custom here in europe, so normally you go shopping 2-3 times each week to be able to buy as fresh vegetables, fruits and breads ans possible. Electronic shops or similar, normally offer delivery of their goods.

I live in the rural part of our country, so sadly no buses after 9:00 in the evening, as well that we only have a bus once an hour. Car around here is far more necessary. But from my friends, that live in the capital city, maybe 20% own a car, and they use is as well not for citytours, but for visiting relatives outside of vienna or similar. To save money they often have their cars far away of the city core, so they need to travel to their cars anyway with public transportation. ^^ In the city core, there simply is nearly no advantage to an car (slower then public transportation, no place for parking unless you pay for an housed parking spot - about 100 EUR/month, additional you have the cost of the car itself, the insurance costs, the service and maintenance costs... for a car that you maybe use 1-2 times each month.) So most people avoid anyway to own a car themselves, but loan one from friends/families/companies, the few times they need it.

Its as well a reason, why the want to ban cars from their city cores, so while most of them dont own cars of their own, because of visitors or outside workers, they still need to give away tons of space and have tons of traffic. So while they dont loose much benefit, because of most owning anyway no own cars, they would gain much benefits in the opposite by banning cars.

Not a chance. Congress is owned by too many special interest groups, among the most powerful and wealthy of them is the car industry.

Their profits are more important than the quality of life,safety and long term benefits of the 'common' people.

It is not a matter of being selfless. Many American suburbs are so spread out that mass transit is not a viable alternative.

ruveyn

That is because those special interest groups have blocked every attempt to establish a mass transit system.

Just look at what is happening to Tesla Motors. Putting aside their product or price or viability or what you think of the company, focus on why they are being blocked in many states from opening their own sales room or selling the vehicles in said states:

The auto dealerships have a very powerful lobby group and donate a lot money to politicians. They see Tesla as a company that is cutting them, the middleman, off the food chain. Therefore they lobby with the most absurd reasons and excuses to block Tesla from selling their product in the state.

In my city a mass transit rail system was proposed to ferry people East to West and North to South .. it wasn't a city-wide mass transit system nor an attempt to put the equivalent of a subway-like transportation network. It simply was an idea to allow cargo and people to move long distances (driving time 1 to 2 hours with light traffic) so they could have easier access to jobs across town or even in neighboring cities (which the rails would connect to at least 2 cities in each direction).

It was an amazing thing and people loved the idea. For a year that was the talk of every news station and people discussed its pros and cons in cafes and at work. The main con was the cost but the pros were too many and more than compensated for it.

...but no, the powerful interest groups butted in to demolish the rail plan. Trucking companies, taxi companies, road construction/maintenance companies... they all tossed cash into the political arena and got the whole thing derailed. Only years after did a neutered version of the rail, now only applying East to West line was permitted. That rail is so limited it has very little benefit to the people of the city.

So you see, 'car free' cities in the US will never happen. Not in in a plutarchy this country is in.

Public tranport is not an alternative to a car. Around here buses and trains usually stop at midnight. How are people supposed to get home after that?

I can't see this happening here in Phoenix.......granted, there are efforts being made to make things more "bike friendly", but the way the city is spread out, you almost "have" to have a car to get anywhere.

It's not gonna happen in the US and I don't want it to.
What are they gonna do, tell people that already live there they have no choice but to get rid of their vehicles?
Good luck getting me to give up my wheels.

yeah being able to go where you want when you want on your own time is what makes America great

"They" are normally not doing anything, but wait until the citizens have decided themselves by voting. ^^ Normally such desicions are done by citizens themselves by an citizens voting. And "they" then simply do their job = caring for the citizens votings results and what the people want.

And because of such zones already existing: NOONE can tell you if you want to buy a car or not, but the citizens of an area can simply decide themselves, how they want their area to be used. So you can own as much car as you want, you simply need to care for, that certain areas or streets cannot be used by them anymore, due to the wishes of the citizens, that live there. Additionally there are normally all kind of extra-rules, so as example if you are physical disabled or similar you are still allowed to drive with your car in these areas with walking speed, so you get extra permissions. Public transportations are as well allowed in these areas and so on. Normally at the entrance of such zones, you have automatic poles, that people with permissions and emergency vehicles simply can lower to drive beyond them. For delivery of wares to shops and similar, there are normally special time zones, when trucks are allowed to do their deliveries.

This couldn't happen in most places. How would you get anywhere?

I don't have a car which means I have to take buses or cabs wherever I go. Buses don't go everywhere and don't run 24 hours a day, plus they can turn what would be a short trip into half the day, especially if you have to take 2 or 3 buses to get where you are going and they don't run very often. Cabs can be pretty expensive. I have to go to a doctor in another city and if Medicaid didn't pay for my cab it would cost me $30 each way and that's without a tip.

Telling people to "ride a bike" isn't very helpful to people who are disabled or otherwise can't ride a bike.

Here in Australia a number of capital cities are moving toward car-free. Central business districts now have car-free zones or implement no-parking areas. Another strategy is to introduce ridiculous speed zones as low as 10km/hr, effectively making it impractical to drive.