
Can a city really ban cars from its streets? (2014) - antr
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140204-can-a-city-really-go-car-free?
======
peatmoss
When you total up the amount of land that we dedicate to cars, it's absolutely
staggering. I read a stat a while back (can't find it right now), that
something like 33% of the land area of Seattle is paved vehicle surface. I'm
sure Seattle isn't more paved-over than most other cities. Then, when you
realize how this staggering amount of land is used to separate living,
working, and other activity space, you begin to feel that we're living in
little islands surrounded by fast-moving rivers of lethal steel--lethal steel
that results in toxic gas and water runoff that sickens the remaining
population that isn't directly killed at a rate of tens-of-thousands per year.

Gosh I hope we can figure this out in my lifetime.

~~~
ars
Travel is the driver of all human progress and development.

What, you think the amount of roads we have now is a lot? We've always had
roads, they were for carts, or horses, or anything else. There is nothing
special about cars here.

> Gosh I hope we can figure this out in my lifetime.

We did. We made travel cheap and easy and it has benefited us massively.

~~~
makeitsuckless
We didn't have roads 4 lanes wide (which is a huge amount of additional land
lost), and we didn't have the insane amount of parking space.

Even a not particularly car friendly city like Amsterdam would look
dramatically different if you removed the parking space, because it would free
up such an insane amount of space.

Cars have multiplied the amount of space dedicated to transport, without
actually adding much to human progress and development, what with most of it
being used to carry individuals short distances from A to B and back again.

I don't see the massive benefit here. It's a pointless habit we shaped a
life/work culture around with a mostly negative impact on the quality of life.

~~~
classicsnoot
>without adding much to human progress and development

I am opposed to vehicles being the priority, but their prevalence is directly
related to their usefulness within the economic regions they occur in. If you
ever go to the developing world, you will see vehicles used to grow and
maintain society. It is easy to forget, living in the suburbs as i do, that
most of the world does not joy ride over-produced SUVs.

The ability to move freely is a magical thing. Living in a place with bad
roads is a reality to itself that i think every westerner should experience.
The problem is what we use to take advantage of the roads.

Roads are society's rivers.

~~~
Dylan16807
Roads are great. The argument is against personal cars. You can have most of
those gains with a vastly smaller number of automobiles, and remove many of
the negatives like parking lots.

~~~
classicsnoot
I completely agree. I was only responding to the assertion that roads and
vehicles are fairly useless.

I hope i live to see the day when city centers are car free, and all cars on
the road are automated and distributed. Imagine leaving your domicile, hitting
a widget on your device, and in a short time a vehicle approaches near
silently, its bay door opening. you step in and you are off to work at a
consistent 60kph. Each day, you see the same people on their commutes, so you
naturally strike up conversations and friendships. With the steering column as
well as ~90% of other standard car interaction gack gone, the interior is free
to be redesigned to suit whatever purpose one may have. Vehicles could link
up, breakfast could be enjoyed over whatever amount of data you choose to view
on your way, and there would be no traffic that the passenger is accountable
for. And in the afternoon you do it all again, only now beverage quads flit
back and forth between mothership and car swarm, possibly making the commute
the high point of the day.

------
matt4077
Driverless car could take us (almost) there. The coordination would allow
traffic to flow incredibly smoothly, meaning a single one-way lane would be
enough for most streets. They could more easily be shared, significantly
lowering the need for parking. Even privately-owned cars could find their
parking spot in i. e. an underground garage a few blocks away. Therefore: no
need for parking spaces along the road.

So you go from four lanes (2 driving, 2 parking) to just a single one.
Sidewalk area increases from "two-lane width" to four and one lane is free for
bicycles.

It's going two be a revolution comparable to the invention of the internet,
completely changing the quality of living in cities. And I get to see it,
yeah. (Unless I end up being one of the world's last traffic fatalities)

~~~
Houshalter
I think that driverless cars would make up for it by increasing the total
amount of traffic. If driving has little cost as an activity, people will
drive much more and be ok with much longer commutes.

~~~
breischl
Right now much of the true cost of commuting is spread out in periodic costs
like vehicle purchase, maintenance, licensing fees, paying for
parking/storage, etc. But all anybody looks at is the time and gas.

If you're taking a car service of some sort, all the other stuff will getg
figured into the per-mile cost and presented for payment each day when you get
to work. I'm guessing once people are hit in the face with the full cost, they
will make different (and arguably more rational) decisions.

~~~
ghaff
There may be some truth to that but look at a city which has a large number of
taxis and car services like Manhattan. It's not exactly a car-less paradise.

This is one of the things I find somewhat strange about how so many people go
gaga whenever optimistic dates for self-driving cars get thrown out. If you
live in a city, you already have a "self-driving" option. Maybe someday it
will be possible to create autonomous cars (that can put all those drivers out
of a job). But basically the only thing that you're doing that you can't do
today is dropping the price by, I don't know, $10/hr?

~~~
breischl
It's not exactly carless, but IIRC the article mentioned 56% of Manhattanites
don't own a car. Plus they have a massive influx of work commuters, of whom
I'm guessing a vast majority don't drive. So it definitely does work, at least
to some extent and when the conditions are right.

I thought cabbies made more than that when you count in tips, but you might be
right. Living in a city that's not very well served by cabs, I don't use them
much because when I call for one they only show up 50% of the time, and give
very poor information about time-to-pickup. I like to imagine that the "car
cloud" would be much better about both of those, and hence more useful. But
that may just be wishful thinking.

~~~
ghaff
Absolutely, Manhattan simply couldn't function if most people owned cars and
tried to drive. But no visitor to Manhattan is going to even remotely think
"Oh, this is such a wonderful place for pedestrians" :-) Of course, Manhattan
is very densely populated but auto/truck traffic is pretty horrible for large
parts of the day in many areas.

Manhattan taxis are readily hail-able on the street. And they're supplemented
by both Uber/Lyft and private car services. So, as a city, it's probably the
definition of well-served by third-party cars and it's very much a part of the
city's fabric. Just good luck getting either a cab or Uber (at a reasonable
rate) if it's pouring rain.

Maybe $10 should be $15 but who knows about vehicle costs in some hypothetical
future or what human support would be needed. My basic point was that, to a
first approximation, we already have what amount to self-driving cars within
larger and denser cities.

------
mpweiher
This report is false. While Hamburg does plan for a "Green Network", there are
no plans to ban cars or become "car free".

Official statement from the city of Hamburg (in German):
[http://www.hamburg.de/pressearchiv-
fhh/4257482/2014-01-24-bs...](http://www.hamburg.de/pressearchiv-
fhh/4257482/2014-01-24-bsu-keine-autofreie-stadt/)

------
CalRobert
We didn't seem to have any trouble banishing people from the streets, so I
hardly see the problem.

~~~
VLM
Adding to that insight, I've gone hiking in the backcountry and I've seen the
vibrant economy that results from an absence of mobility. (note, the above is
extreme sarcasm)

~~~
Dewie
You're saying that there aren't any photo sharing startups in that backwards
backcountry? Gosh darn.

~~~
forgotpasswd3x
Those poor people!

------
holri
Cars are a huge waste of space:

[https://geppbloggt.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gehzeug1.jpg](https://geppbloggt.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gehzeug1.jpg)
[https://diskussionsgruppespartacus.files.wordpress.com/2012/...](https://diskussionsgruppespartacus.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/gehzeug.jpg)

~~~
nsxwolf
Huge _use_ of space. Waste is an opinion.

~~~
holri
Yes that is my opinion. Allowing this waste is the opposite of a smart city.

Using 1,5 t of mass to transport on average 100 kg is also a massive waste of
energy.

------
polarix
If this were actually doing as the title suggests, it would demolish the
possibility for any personal DIY projects that require heavy
equipment/materials. Indeed, bulk home goods and appliance sales companies
should be up in arms.

Luckily, they're just trying to make it _possible_ to get around without cars,
not illegal to use cars, which is likely to dramatically increase the
possibility for lightweight cooperative social interactions.

~~~
TillE
In Berlin (where not everybody owns a car), it's quite common to see people
walking out of the hardware store with large planks of wood balanced over
their shoulder, or sometimes in a bike trailer. People manage.

And yes, obviously you still need to allow commercial delivery vehicles.
There's really no alternative to that.

~~~
bweitzman
A plank of wood or two is fine to carry, but what if you need to move
something heavier like a refrigerator or a piece of furniture? It's ridiculous
to think that people should have to carry that stuff by hand or on bicycles
over distances of multiple miles.

I think it's more feasible that we ban personal vehicles in cities while still
allowing commercial and emergency vehicles. Even allowing these vehicles, we'd
probably be able to reduce most roads to single lane one way streets.

~~~
6t6t6
I don't know how often you buy new refrigerators, but I would rather hire a
delivery company every time I change my refrigerator if that means living in a
clean city.

On the other car, the ban for private cars usually has only effect during a
period of the day. In Barcelona, at least, you can access most streets in the
city center after 20:00.

~~~
cbd1984
> hire a delivery company

As usual, this plan is OK for the more affluent and makes life more difficult
for the poor.

~~~
wcummings
Poor people are probably using public transit, not driving in the first place.
Investment in public transportation would be good for them. Investment in
roads (automobile infrastructure) benefits only those who can afford cars.

------
darkstar999
Clickbait to the max.

"The city’s proposed Grünes Netz, or “Green Network” will create pedestrian
and cycle paths to connect the city’s existing, substantial green spaces, and
provide safe, car-free commuter routes for all residents."

That is awesome, but it has nothing to do with banning vehicles.

~~~
Filligree
Of course it does. Their intention is to convert the roads to those paths,
which is something they can't possibly do while still supporting cars.

~~~
darkstar999
Some roads, not all roads.

------
robertnealan
Hamburg's mentioned plan reminds me of Daniel Burnham's 1905 plan for San
Francsico, which would have created Panhandle-like parks running all over the
city as well as diagonal avenues connecting major points of interest a-la
Paris or Washington DC. The 1906 earthquake would've been the perfect
opportunity to make it a reality, but unfortunately it never went anywhere.

Map:
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Burnham_San_Fr...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Burnham_San_Francisco.jpg)

~~~
100k
Such a huge lost opportunity. Many cities (Boston, Minneapolis) have very
beautiful parks connected by chains of greenways. San Francisco could have
built that, but didn't, and the lack of parks in the Eastern part of the city
has a major negative effect on livability. Consider how nice South Park seems
compared to the rest of SOMA.

------
toolslive
you can: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvain-la-
Neuve](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvain-la-Neuve)

~~~
qt7
I am surprised nobody mentioned Venice, the largest car-free city in Europe.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice#In_the_historical_city](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice#In_the_historical_city)

~~~
tigrella
People often forget to mention that Venice is car-less. It was one of the most
relaxing and unique things about the city to me and not a single person
mentioned it to me before I visited.

------
wahsd
It is amazing how ambitious and progressive Germany has been over the last two
decades. It has always been very public transportation and self-locomotion
focused, but this is quite impressive. They have curtailed nuclear energy;
funded alternative energy production, research, and socialization; curtailed
fossil fuel energy production and use; and now are moving towards the future
of in this manner. In a way, they are also setting up the city, and maybe even
the country, for autonomous vehicles.

As I have been spending significant time on evaluating and analyzing the
ramifications of autonomous vehicles, one thing has always been a bit of a
challenge, how to make a transition. It's actually relatively easy in Germany
and not that much of a leap since a lot of the foundational work had been done
and the trajectory has been in a complementary direction. The real challenge
will be how the USA makes the transition and doesn't simply sabotage itself
out of spite for itself as it has an established reputation for now.

~~~
erobbins
There's nothing "progressive" about eliminating nuclear energy. Especially
when the goal is more electrical transportation, not less.

~~~
forgotpasswd3x
If we can replace nuclear with other clean sources, such as solar and wind,
until the time that we can safely dispose of nuclear waste, then yes, I'd say
that's progressive.

~~~
pnclpshr
What about thorium and the liftr reactor? it uses 90%+ of its fuel.

~~~
forgotpasswd3x
Are those actually in production yet?

(Not trying to be snarky, just though those were still not really ready yet)

------
f_allwein
This is actually a misunderstanding - while Hamburg does plan to connect its
green spaces, it does not plan to ban all cars.

See their official statement (in German): [http://www.hamburg.de/pressearchiv-
fhh/4257482/2014-01-24-bs...](http://www.hamburg.de/pressearchiv-
fhh/4257482/2014-01-24-bsu-keine-autofreie-stadt/)

~~~
jraedisch
As a resident of Hamburg I can assure you it will not become a car-free city
within the next 20 years. So far, we don't even have an "Umweltzone" (green or
environmental friendly zone) where only cars maintaining certain filtering and
mileage standards are allowed to drive.

------
panic
_The goal of Hamburg’s project is to replace roads with a “gruenes netz” or a
green network of interconnected open areas covering 40% of the city. According
to the official website, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, allotments and
cemeteries will be connected to form a network, which will allow people to
navigate through the city without the use of cars._

Why not just let people walk on the roads? Places like cemeteries and parks
can be quite creepy to walk through, especially at night. Roads next to
buildings with people in them are a more comfortable place to walk.

~~~
balabaster
Is that just because that isn't the norm? If it was quite normal to walk
through a cemetery or park at night, would it still be as creepy or is it just
because of the proliferation of ghost and paranormal stories...?

------
tdyen
Im surprised so few of the comments deal with disabled people or old people or
people who cant walk much for injury or other reason. We cant make elitist
cities. As I get older and my knees worse I really appreciate those who have
to struggle. I love walking but its getting harder and harder. Saying that Id
love to get rid of most cars or make em all electric. I train to work and its
nicer than driving and Id bike if it was remotely safe but its psycho to bike
in Australia.

~~~
justincormack
Electric bikes seem popular with the elderly in Japan. The British prefer golf
carts.

------
yellowapple
Probably not if the headline has to be phrased as a question. :)

Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) the greenspaces Hamburg is proposing, I
have an even cooler idea: turn them into lazy rivers[0]. I'd be totally down
with commutes involving calm, aimless drifting on flotation devices.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_river](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_river)

------
easytiger
> It is an ambitious idea, but city officials obviously feel that the personal
> motorcar does not fulfill a function that walking, biking and taking public
> transport cannot.

Except fucking over the people who actually live there for the benefit of
people who exist there transiently.

~~~
jessaustin
'easytiger, when HN voters can't comprehend your writing, they downvote. While
it's pretty clear to this somewhat-experienced reader of English-language
online fora that "fucking over the people" is an action you ascribe to "the
personal motorcar" rather than to "walking, biking and taking public
transport", most respondents (thus, presumably, most voters) seem to have
_whooshed_. Often we must be more verbose than we'd like, to communicate with
those who are not in the habit of thinking while reading.

~~~
jrs99
or you could just not mind the downvotes whether they are misunderstood,
accidental, or random.

------
qntty
Something I would love to see in NYC. Not as new of an idea as it might seem
either, here's an old pamplet from the 60s about it

[http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/goodman-
cars.htm](http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/goodman-cars.htm)

------
researcher88
A few years ago the EU proposed banning cars in all major European cities by
2050. And they wanted to restrict 50% of all trabel over 186 miles to trains.
The plan was rejected by the UK and was criticized as draconian.

------
wesleyd
In California, zoning specifies _minimum_ numbers of parking spaces. In
UK/Ireland, zoning specifies _maximum_ number of spaces.

------
danielovich
Zermatt, Switzerland. Car free city.

~~~
valvar
From the photos and Wikipedia description, I'm in love. I want to move there.

~~~
prawn
There are a few villages in the Swiss alps with no cars or very limited use of
cars. In one I visited, a hotel owner picked up guests and their luggage from
the gondola using something like a golf cart. It worked well - low speed,
smaller, less dangerous, quieter, etc.

------
Graham24
British Thermal Units? Surely that's an obsolete unit.

