
Europe is edging towards making post-car cities a reality - tosh
https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/08/01/streets-ahead
======
JDiculous
Spent the last 6 months in Seoul and the surrounding cities in Korea. Never
needed a car. You can literally do everything without a car, everything is a
short walk. I truly believe it makes a huge positive impact on happiness when
you can just walk anywhere instead of having to drive. Also you'll notice that
in Korea/Japan there are way more small businesses and things to do (eg.
karaoke, cafes, etc) because people of this. In America there's relatively
less to do because leaving the home is more of a hassle and less interesting,
so people just stay in more.

My least favorite thing about living in America is the dependence on cars
(outside of a select few cities like NYC). Now that my parents in the suburbs
sold their spare car, whenever I go back to visit, I'm stranded there during
the weekdays because the nearest bus stop is like a 40 minute walk, and the
nearest subway would be maybe a 90 minute walk. If I need to go anywhere, I'm
dependent on Uber/Lyft. Even if I get access to a car, there's relatively much
less to do as I mentioned above.

~~~
H8crilA
It's the case not just in Korea and Japan but in most cities outside of
America. It's one of American peculiarities, like checks or no public health
care.

China has a fantastic subway system in most big cities, for example. I once
took a subway ride from the Shenzhen airport to the Hong Kong border, crossed
the border, switched to another subway and arrived in downtown Hong Kong.
That's around 65km (40 miles) by public subway!

~~~
ckris
I wouldn't say most cities unfortunately. European cities are quite walkable
and not as sprawling as American ones. But it is still pretty easy to end up
were only cars can go not that far from the city center, or where there is
only the occasional bus. Asia is really the leader in public transport now. I
think the article is slightly misleading. Currently in Europe things like bike
infrastructure and public transport is sort of like the development of drones.
Everyone is saying they are doing it to claim they are keeping up, but not a
lot is happening. It isn't like Shenzhen were every year there is a new
pedestrian street, bikes, subway line, train line or something became
electrified.

~~~
vladojsem
I live in Europe (in Prague right now) and I never needed to own a car here. I
would say it depends on the city in Europe. However, if you occasionally
happen to be outside of the city center where only cars go you would call
Uber. I am fine with that when 90% of my daily transport is covered by public
transport.

~~~
fluffything
I live in Germany, and use the bike, e-scooter/bikes/... and public transport
for everything.

I have owned a car before, and I did not use those other transportation
methods any less. We don't own a car anymore because it does not make economic
sense for us.

When we need to travel by car inside the city, we just use Uber (~30 EUR/month
is what we currently pay). When we need a car for a couple of hours to pick up
stuff, we use one of the car sharing vendors. We can get "the right car" for
whatever we need for ~4 hours with gas for less than ~20 EUR (~once every two
months). When we want to travel around with a car, we just rent a high end one
for the weekend for ~300 EUR. We do that once every two months, although in
the summer a bit more often. This means we end up paying ~3000-3500 EUR/year
in rentals/uber.

If we were to own a high end car, we would at least have to pay 30.000
EUR/year for a used one with 100k kms. On top, we need to pay insurance
(~500-600EUR/year), parking (~150EUR/month where we live), maintenance
(~200/year), handle some other burdens (wheel changes, etc.), and if for
whatever reason we need a different car (to pick up something big), we still
need to rent that. That puts the costs of owning a car at 2300-2400EUR/year +
unforeseen maintenance + gas + rentals + (30.000 EUR - reselling value) /
(years until re-selling).

Where we live, unless one uses the car at least every weekend, it makes no
sense owning one. At one weekend usage per month, you can just rent, and are
more flexible.

~~~
rexgallorum2
Your estimated costs are pretty average, but I found the €30k figure curious.
Used cars are dirt cheap in Germany, and they are often in really good shape
and well maintained compared to used cars in other countries.

I occasionally drive a 20 year old Opel that was purchased 7 years ago for
€2500. It works great. I ride my bike most of the time, but it's really handy
to have a car to haul kids or heavy/bulky stuff.

~~~
camillomiller
If you have kids, especially more than one, a no-car city center is a
nightmare. Even in Europe.

~~~
hylaride
That very much depends on the city. I had no problem getting around
Paris/Amsterdam/London/Rome when I was traveling with my friend's family (3
kids). A car would have been a bigger nightmare with traffic and parking and
we weren't even staying in the central areas.

But it also depends on how and where you live and work specifically. If I
lived in a many of the areas outside of the Périphérique in Paris, not owning
a car would probably impact your overall quality of life, but I'd still not
want to take it into the city.

~~~
kspacewalk2
Rome should not be on that list IMO. Its public transport is terrible, at
least in the centre. Still preferable to having to drive there though, that's
for sure. I'm sure it's not true of every part of the city, but I was
unpleasantly surprised by inadequate rush hour bus service. Haven't seen buses
that packed since my childhood in 1990s Ukraine.

------
rayiner
I’m personally not a huge fan of driving everywhere. But I wonder whether HN’s
view on this isn’t out of touch with the average middle class American’s. The
average American commute is 48 minutes round trip, significantly shorter than
France (71 minutes), Italy (65 minutes), or Spain (61 minutes):
[https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling...](https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling_to_and_from_work.pdf)

That’s mainly because Europe has higher public transit use, and public transit
is slow. Parisians who work and commute by public transit spend an average of
116 minutes a day on public transit:
[https://www.thelocal.fr/20160418/parisians-spend-23-days-
a-y...](https://www.thelocal.fr/20160418/parisians-spend-23-days-a-year-on-
public-transport).

Viewed from a different perspective, a country where most people can spend 48
minutes a day commuting, because it’s rich enough for everyone to afford a
car,[1] might be considered better than one where many people have to endure
two-hour public transit commutes. Maybe utopia isn’t Paris, with rich people
living in beautiful walkable downtowns, but rather Houston, where middle class
people can afford big houses with a pool and a short, direct commute.

[1] The median disposable income per US household is a staggering 50% higher
than for a French household.

~~~
mantap
Time on a train is at least semi-productive time. You can read HN! Which, face
it, is what you'd be doing anyway. Time in a car is just spent staring at the
road.

~~~
marcoperaza
I like to call my family and girlfriend during my commutes. It’s much nicer to
do that in the privacy and comfort of a car than in public transportation.
There’s also audiobooks and music.

~~~
dwd
Not sure why you're getting down-voted as having people talking (often loudly)
on their phone on public transport makes it unpleasant for everyone else. I
try and save calls for the car part of my commute, but then get accused of
only calling cause I have nothing better to do...

You do appreciated the relative silence (no one on their phone or talking
above a whisper) on trains in Japan.

Brisbane trains on the other hand - you need to wear noise-cancelling
headphones (music optional) to block out other people's conversations - even
in the quiet carriages.

~~~
arkh
> Not sure why you're getting down-voted

Maybe because just speaking on the phone in traffic makes a lot less attentive
so you're prone to create accidents.

~~~
dwd
I would consider talking hands-free (if you're holding a phone you deserve to
lose your license) no more distracting than listening to music.

There are worst things like eating or talking to someone else in the car.
(look at the road not the person when you're talking)

~~~
arkh
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsfree_device)

[https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-18024-008](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-18024-008)

>The results indicate that passenger conversations differ from cell phone
conversations because the surrounding traffic not only becomes a topic of the
conversation, helping driver and passenger to share situation awareness, but
the driving condition also has a direct influence on the complexity of the
conversation, thereby mitigating the potential negative effects of a
conversation on driving.

~~~
dwd
Thanks for the links, learnt something new. The bit about the cognitive load
preparing to speak or speaking rather than passive listening was interesting.

Yes, when talking to someone in the car they should be aware of the traffic
and pause the conversation, where you have to tell the person on the other end
of the phone that you need to go.

------
tmh79
Its amazing to me how cheap these changes are, and how much people love them
after they are implemented. You go to a neighborhood meeting in the US and all
you hear about is "loss of parking", "traffic", but when you remove the cars,
everyone loves it.

~~~
ArnoVW
There is pushback against car-impacting measures in Europe too, make no
mistake.

The yellow jackets in France started as a protest against increase in tax on
petrol. The previous president in France, Hollande, had to roll back a toll
system. It took Paris 2 years of legal battles to close the roads along the
Seine.

The major difference, compared witg the US, is that at least in an urban
setting, in Europe you can imagine other alternatives.

The problem of the US is that outside of major cities, the entire country was
designed and built on the premise of cheap, individual transportation.
Everyone has his own little house with a little garden. No town centres. This
lack of density means that public transport or bikes will never be able to be
able to provide a serious alternative to the automobile, and so people will
never given them up.

~~~
simias
I don't know how it is in the USA but in France (and I suspect most old
European cities) the richer people who can afford to live in the city center
are generally in favor of removing cars because they either don't have a car
or can afford to pay for a private parking spot while people who live in the
suburbs and take their cars to work every day have to suffer the consequences.
So you end up with this "class warfare" type situation.

Of course since in practice the richer people who live in the city centers are
also those who elect the mayors things still eventually move forward in the
direction of fewer cars.

I suspect that it might be different in the USA because I've always heard that
things worked the other way around here: rich people live in wealthy suburbs
and go everywhere by car while poor people stay stuck in the city centers.

~~~
maxsilver
This is exactly how it is in the USA too, for about the past 20ish years now.

Wealthy people have largely eliminated poor/middle class people out of the
core urban areas, and moved them mostly to the suburbs/exurbs. Then, wealthy
people tear down the functional public transportation between the urban city
and the rest of the metro (mostly roads and freeways), and replace them with
pretty but function-less "public transit" (mostly buses in the midwest).

This is sold, in theory, on being "green". But the new bus system covers less
than 5% of the road system it replaces, and their gentrification efforts
actually decrease the usefulness of the buses that already existed, since they
cut down a small forests worth of trees on the edge of the city every time
they displace an previously-urban neighborhood -- so the net result is almost
always _lower_ ridership - [https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/22/18628524/metro-
ridership-dow...](https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/22/18628524/metro-ridership-
down-housing-gentrification-transit) \- and their attempts to remove cars from
the city (through intentional congestion, artificial scarcity, use fees,
whatever) move this transportation to less efficient routes far outside the
city, where they must burn more gasoline per person to accomplish identical
trips, emitting more CO2 per person and in total.

So you get this ridiculous situation where US cities can point to all these
shiny new bus lines and bike lanes as "progress", but absolutely no one can
afford the housing needed to use any of that, so on a CO2-per-person basis,
we've regressed significantly. And 1990's era cities with it's freeways and
parking were often _better_ for the environment on a CO2-per-person basis than
2019's cities are today that lack those.

~~~
adjkant
> So you get this ridiculous situation where US cities can point to all these
> shiny new bus lines and bike lanes as "progress", but absolutely no one can
> afford the housing needed to use any of that, so on a CO2-per-person basis,
> we've regressed significantly. And 1990's era cities with it's freeways and
> parking were often better for the environment on a CO2-per-person basis than
> 2019's cities are today that lack those.

There's no way this is true. Housing density has increased within cities
themselves. Generally things have also become more CO2 efficient within the
cities as well. More people live in cities than 20 years ago. If someone in
the suburbs drives, it's the same (or less with modern cars). If they use
transit, it's less. If they move out of the suburbs or stop commuting, it's
also less. Where does the CO2 increase come from?

It's also important to remember that these trends vary vastly depending on the
city you talk about. High density cities with good existing public transit
infrastructure have very much succeeded and improved public transit, not
destroyed it. LA is very much not a good example due to the sprawling nature.
I lived in LA for 6 months and would not call it a city but rather 13
connected suburbs. A bus there is indeed a failed project. Heck, even the Expo
line they just built to connect the west side is a lot of travel time and not
much coverage.

------
benrbray
Not just Europe! Tokyo, for example, is a remarkably pedestrian and bicycle-
friendly city, despite also supporting quite heavy traffic in some areas. And
of course, the extensive train network completely eliminates the need for a
car in daily life.

If you pick a random place on the map (like [1]), you'll see that the high-
speed traffic is very well-separated from residential areas, with infrequent
intersections. There is also little incentive to take a "shortcut" through
residential areas since neighborhood roads are so narrow. The result is that
neighborhood are safe and quiet enough that parents feel safe letting their
small children walk along the road. I even see wildlife!

See also [2] about mixed-use zoning in Japan.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6405724,139.622306,14.42z](https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6405724,139.622306,14.42z)

[2] [http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-
zoning.html](http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html)

~~~
codeswap
The Superblock. This is what makes the these cities so comfortable to live in.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_block#Superblock](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_block#Superblock)

~~~
rtpg
And unlike the absolutely terrifying planned city-like look you get from
looking at pictures used to represent Superblocks, in Tokyo the superblock
mechanism is the logical conclusion of organic development over the decades
and has a natural feel, leading to pretty small buildings that are just
densely packed together.

Almost all[1] roads in Tokyo are single lane! Not "one lane each direction"
but "one lane". The massive avenues are sparse because it turns out you don't
need that sort of capacity in most places.

Walking around Tokyo, even European cities feel super wasteful and car-centric
with how wide roads are.

[1]: maybe 80%+? Less true in the most popular parts of the city though, where
you have the biggest ap't complexes

------
jedberg
It's a lot easier for Europe to go carless than the USA. They have better
_intra-city_ public transit for one. Also, most (all?) of their major cities
laid out their grids before the invention of the car.

In the USA, even older cities had all but their city centers designed around
cars, and if you look at the top 10 cities, 7 of the 10 saw >90% of their road
construction after the invention of the car.

That being said, I don't understand why new cities in the US aren't being
planned around being carless. I guess it's just so engrained in our culture
that it will be hard to overcome?

~~~
softwaredoug
Unfortunately “new cities” develop in places where everyone is used to
driving, so it takes a lot to overcome a car centric culture.

I live in a college town in a rural area. The transition to public
transportation happens when parking becomes expensive or impractical (such as
at the university) so people park and ride on a bus.

But that still requires cars. Frankly cars have value that’s hard to replace
when there’s a disperse population. Which maybe is the real problem in the US:
there’s a culture around “I want my own land”. It pervades even in progressive
circles...

~~~
hannasanarion
How many such "new cities" are there really? Car culture wasn't a thing until
the 1950s and I can't think of a single metropolitan city that was founded
after that.

~~~
jedberg
There are lots of new cities, or at least cities that were founded or built
substantially after the invention of the car. Irvine, CA, for example began
construction in the 60s and incorporated in the 70s (and now has more than
250K people making it a top 100 city by population). The town I grew up in
only incorporated in 1982 (and most every house was built in the 70s to 90s).

Also the city of Mountain House is a planned community for 20,000 that started
construction in 2001.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_House,_San_Joaquin_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_House,_San_Joaquin_County,_California)

------
jointpdf
If you want to experience a car-free place in the US, you should check out
Mackinac Island in between the Upper and Lower peninsulas of Michigan. Horses,
bikes, and feet are the forms of transportation—motorized vehicles have been
banned since 1898. There’s great history, Victorian architecture, and Great
Lakes beauty. It’s a pure slice of Americana.

~~~
rglover
How does that work out during the winter up there?

~~~
analog31
The only thing happening on the island is tourism, which is pretty much gone
during the winter, and access to the island is marginal at best when the ferry
shuts down for the season. All of the labor is seasonal as well, mostly from
overseas.

~~~
morganherlocker
I went as a kid and recall locals often having snowmobiles as well.

~~~
analog31
A slightly more populous island in the north lands:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/22ice.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/22ice.html)

------
b3b0p
Car free in downtown Minneapolis for a while now and lease out my parking spot
for $200/month.

Don't see how it could be any more convenient, easy, affordable and stress
free of owning a car. Winter is easy with the Skyway [0].

I've seen people go get Starbucks in their pajama's, I can go to the gym,
work, grocery store, Target, and more all through the Skyway when weather is
bad.

The two light rails are only a block away and go from downtown to Mall of
America and University of Minnesota. I have multiples of bus stops right
outside my condo.

I usually just fill up a GoToCard with $20 when needed and go when ever and
wherever I please without issues. Which gets me access to any bus or light
rails.

The only downside I have so far is that I haven't found a good stop off the
bus or light rails where I can conveniently and quickly get to play outdoor
pick up hockey.

[0] [http://www.skywaymyway.com](http://www.skywaymyway.com)

------
marcus_holmes
Living car-free in Berlin is ridiculously easy. I have my own bicycle, but
still grab a Jump bike when I've walked somewhere and need to get home
faster/easier.

But this is the summer. I haven't done the winter here yet. That'll be the
test.

~~~
zwaps
In the last winters it barely snowed in Berlin, so I know quite a few people
who kept riding their bikes all through the year. Of course, use your head -
if it is damp and then below zero, be careful. Common sense, really.

If all fails, public transport is decent enough to get you anywhere on foot.
It's not perfect, I think mostly because Berlin is spatially huge and
comparably empty. Cities like Paris have a much more dense public transport
infrastructure. But I think you never need to walk more than ten to fifteen
minutes (compared to a max of five minutes in Paris and London), which is
acceptable.

There really isn't much of a reason to own a car if you live within the S-Bahn
ring.

~~~
galaxyLogic
Just be aware of those tram tracks riding your bike into them can be deadly.
At least in Amsterdam

~~~
marcus_holmes
Yeah, my gf wiped out on those last week. Not fun

------
davidhyde
I wish the UK was a little more forward thinking when it comes to small
electric mobility devices but they actively fine you here for using them on
public roads and cycle lanes.

Imagine that people have been riding electric scooters for a hundred years and
along comes some new technology, a diesel van. It can transport all the things
we buy online to our doors and would be beneficial to society. The problem is
that there have been a few fatal accidents between vans and scooters. One of
the van drivers was a celebrity. The scooter drivers die, no one else gets
hurt. The government decides to ban the new vans because they are too
dangerous to OTHER people. There is a big uproar and people would rather
scooters be banned instead because that solves the problem too (well, except
for bicycles and... people).

------
eddieh
I live in a suburb of Seattle, I haven’t owned a car for about two years. It
used to be owning a car was liberating, but now I think the day I sold my car
was one of the most liberating days of my life.

~~~
avisser
How frequently do you "share" the road with cars? How many of your neighbors
are car-less?

~~~
eddieh
What do you mean "share" the road with cars? I walk almost everywhere. I have
a Zipcar account that I use less than once a month and a bus pass that I use
even less frequently. It is hard to say how many of my neighbors are car-less,
most people seem to own cars, but not out of necessity — it is a pretty rich
area.

------
sunstone
Last year in the Netherlands more e-bikes were bought than regular bikes. And
on average the e-bikes cost twice as much as the regular bikes. What the Dutch
have discovered is that an e-bike is more of a substitute for a car rather
than for a pedal bike, it's expands the range of running errands up to 10km or
15km while being more convenient and often faster than a car.

This is future of most cities worldwide sooner or later.

~~~
Kifot
As a guy from Poland, I feel like the only obstacle is atrocious weather in
winter, which stops 95% people from riding bikes. From March to November it
would work just fine though.

~~~
sunstone
The Norwegians say,"There's no such thing as bad weather just bad clothing."
:) But more seriously in poor weather if you don't have to pedal very much and
you have a "fat tire" e-bike [1] you may find it's quite a bit more
comfortable than you expect.

[https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radrover-electric-
fat...](https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radrover-electric-fat-bike)

------
jimbokun
On vacation in Rome this summer, there is so much foot traffic on the major
streets there is often no room for cars, and they need to inch forward until
the people in front of them notice them and move out of the way.

Seemed like almost all the cars were taxis, too.

So navigating the city with a personal car seemed completely impractical.

Same with Florence and Cinque Terre.

~~~
lazyjones
> _So navigating the city with a personal car seemed completely impractical._

YMMV, I spent my last 2 holidays in Italy with my car and went pretty much
everywhere, including the old town of Siena, the center of Florence, Lucca by
car. Italy is exceptionally car-friendly, but some tourists seem to be afraid
to go.

~~~
jimbokun
> the center of Florence

You are truly a madman (or madwoman).

From what I hear, traveling between cities in Italy by car is pretty
convenient. But driving along side all the people walking in the middle of
Firenze streets does not sound like the kind of stress I want while on
vacation.

------
eb0la
I always used public transport (metro/train/bus) to go to work. Two years ago
I had to commute daily by car (just 20 minutes) and felt miserable. For me it
was a total waste of time and energy.

Two months ago I switched jobs and started to go to work on my bycicle because
the office is just 1 metro station away from home and I have bycicle way from
home to work (which is very unusual in Madrid, by the way). This is probably
the best job perk I ever had.

------
zyzyis
I have lived in both Europe and US for years. It is not fair to compare both
places as the population density is totally different. You still do need a car
if you are living in suburb area in Europe (in my case the Netherlands). And
in US there is much less people living in the city.

~~~
dheera
I'd argue that even the suburbs of Netherlands are super bike-friendly. It's
always a reasonable bike ride to the nearest train station, buses fill in the
rest, and the roads are setup to be safe for bikers. That's not really the
case in most of the US.

~~~
avisser
I've biked from Amsterdam to Gronigen. I biked through those suburbs. At least
90% of it was on dedicated bike paths (fietspad). And I had choices on which
routes to take.

I agree, the biking experience in the US doesn't compare at all to the Dutch
experience. Dedicated bike paths are a game-changer. A fully-connected path
network takes it to a whole other level.

------
Tiktaalik
Forget electric cars, this is how we should be lowering our CO2 emissions.

We made a huge mistake with car oriented design and we need to rebuild our
cities the right way.

------
opportune
It's going to be tough doing this in a lot of US cities, especially those
which had most of their growth after WW2. So much was built with the
assumption that all transportation would be via car (or bus as an
afterthought, sometimes). You can probably do it in an old downtown area but
good luck trying it in suburbia

~~~
asteli
The US is seeing a large move back toward cities. It makes a lot of sense --
it's where the capital, culture, resources are concentrated. I don't think
we'll see a car-less suburbia in the foreseeable future, but we can certainly
build and modify our cities to be walk/bike/transit-first going forward.

There seems to be this ambient feeling that everything is as it will be, ah
well, but it took decades of (bad) city planning and massive infrastructure
spending to get us our suburban dystopias. It could take decades still for
transit-focused cities to become the new norm.

~~~
pessimizer
> The US is seeing a large move back toward cities.

Is it really, or are you using "US" to mean white middle class? I googled and
can't find a reference for this - do you have one?

Edit:
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.GROW?locations=U...](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.GROW?locations=US)

As far as I can tell from this graph, urban population growth in the US was
lower in 2018 than it's ever been.

~~~
asteli
Well, a lot of America is white and middle class. The push to move to suburbs
was fueled by the white middle class, who fled the cities during and after
desegregation, and was termed the White Flight.

There's a very real displacement problem that's linked to the urban population
growth that you seem skeptical of; marginalized communities are being priced
out of their long-time homes, being pushed out of urban centers and into
suburbs and exurbs.

Anyway, census data shows strong growth of urban areas, and tepid growth of
rural areas, which are a shrinking fraction of the US population.

Some cities have seen astonishing growth:

> Among urbanized areas with populations of 1 million or more, the Charlotte,
> N.C.-S.C., area grew at the fastest rate, increasing by 64.6 percent,
> followed by the Austin, Texas, area, at 51.1 percent, and Las Vegas-
> Henderson, Nev., at 43.5 percent.

[https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_censu...](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html)

~~~
ghaff
Mind you, "urban" by census definitions is very broad. I live in the middle of
about 100 acres with a couple of neighbors 40 miles outside of a major city
and I'm considered urban.

A lot or urbanization isn't Brooklyn. It's smaller cities with minimal transit
systems.

~~~
adrianN
The smaller the city the less transit system does it need. Local errands can
be done by bike, travel to the next city just needs a train station.

------
amirmasoudabdol
EU has the advantage that most of its small and old cities are very dense. I
think it makes a lot of sense to start removing cars from their city centers.
Cars are not particularly efficient or convenient anyway in narrow streets.
That being said I really wonder why Amsterdam still allows cars to drive in
its rings.

~~~
Scoundreller
It's not just the narrowness of the streets: they're also short and not on a
grid.

They're not designed for throughput, which really amplifies the benefits of a
subway/metro vs. buses/trams.

~~~
taffer
> It's not just the narrowness of the streets: they're also short and not on a
> grid.

The US suburbs with their hierarchical residential < collector < highway
system were designed for cars, however most networks in the US city centers
were designed before the invention of the car.

~~~
Scoundreller
I feel like it has more to do with degree of urban planning.

Even before the car, a horse and buggy can get through a city faster arranged
in a grid withoug having to turn a lot.

------
mc32
In many ways developing nations can and do have the option to skip auto-based
transit and go directly into mass transit if only because many up and coming
consumers don’t have the capital to invest into a depreciating asset.

India, Indonesia, much of LatAm, including Mexico, most of Africa, etc. They
could make autos cost prohibitive (in many places they in essence are) and
invest heavily in mass transit. Skip roadways and other infra for personal
vehicles.

China is in the cusp. They could simply decide to ban cars nationwide after a
vigorous campaign promoting transit values.

------
jillesvangurp
Most big cities have a majority of the population without cars at this point.
These cities naturally favor more legislation against cars and this is causing
city administrators to over time introduce more restrictions for cars. E.g.
many Dutch cities got a head start on this to make more room for bicyclists in
the nineteen seventies already. Simple measures include raising prices for
parking and parking permits, introducing park and ride areas where people can
park and hop on a bus to the downtown area, making lots of streets one way
only and segmenting off different parts of the city such that you can only
drive there via the ring road, making large parts of the down town area car
free, etc. Cars are for getting in and out of the city not for driving from A
to B inside a city.

I live in Berlin which is comparatively car friendly because of the German car
manufacturing lobby. You can drive to the downtown area and expect to find
street parking. This is very un-european at this point. Forget about doing
that in Amsterdam, Paris, London, Madrid, etc. Not a thing there anymore. Even
a few decades ago that would have been a bad idea. You'd be stuck in traffic
for ages and your only option for parking will be a full (probably) parking
garages charging massive fees. These days it's flat out not allowed or at
least enormously expensive.

Even so, owning a car does not make much sense in Berlin and most tech people
with comparatively decent incomes I know here in the massive startup scene
don't own cars and many of the few that do rarely use them.

~~~
baud147258
> You can drive to the downtown area and expect to find street parking

I don't think I've ever seen a French city where most streets, including those
downtown, don't have street parking. Most of the time it's not free, but it's
always there.

~~~
jillesvangurp
I've driven around quite a bit in the south of France. My experience is quite
different. Even in smaller towns. E.g Avignon, Lyon, Marseille, Toulouse don't
have a lot of street parking in the downtown areas. Berlin is different in the
sense that you can drive right up to the Alexander Platz and actually have a
decent chance of actually parking your car near by. Also not for free
obviously. That would be the same as driving to e.g. the Arc de Triomf in
Paris or Picadilly circus in London and finding a place to park. It's been a
while since I've been too either place but I don't think this is a thing.

------
DennisP
Europe has had fantastic public transportation for a long time. I lived in
Germany for three years in the 1980s, never had a car, and never felt I needed
one. I traveled all over western Europe.

~~~
cm2187
If you ever want to reverse that opinion, I suggest taking London's tube
and/or Paris' Metro or RER at peak hour in the morning.

~~~
isostatic
I used to drive into west London for 10am, most days it would take 45 minutes
to travel a mile from Hammersmith to Shepherd’s Bush.

~~~
Theodores
Note for others not familiar, if you go Hammersmith Tube Station to Shepherd's
Bush Tube Station overland by bicycle then it takes five minutes, depending on
traffic lights. That is actual five minutes, as in three hundred seconds.

Clearly both areas are larger than their respective train stations but the
stations are representative.

To actually get a tube or other train between the two is not entirely direct,
you would probably get on the wrong Hammersmith station at first (there are
two), spend five minutes crossing the road to get to the other one. Then at
the end a bus or long walk would be needed, so you would soon be in 45 minute
territory.

The traffic can be mostly ignored if doing the route by bicycle except on the
various mini ring roads they have to keep traffic deadly. Hammersmith itself
is like a six lane motorway ring road of hell, easy to die on that one. Then
at Shepherd's Bush there is that green bit where the traffic just goes round
and round very slowly. On the bike you just go straight without getting sent
around these merry-go-rounds of car fumes.

No idea why anyone would want to drive in such parts of London even though I
have had to do it for work myself. It is not even driving, just slowly
shunting along, blocking the way for 'serious' road users who care about their
time and arriving promptly. As a cyclist I don't see myself as a serious road
user, I assume those people in cars have more important journeys than mine so
I am deferential to them. Yet, if being prompt matters to you and you do work
in London, the bicycle is the only reliable means of getting from A to B in a
dependably timely manner.

By that definition, those people in their posh cars, inching along, can't
really be that serious. If they thought about it properly they would abandon
their tin boxes or find better jobs. Travel by car is that silly in London.

~~~
davesmith1983
Most people are coming from outside of London and what you find is that it is
usually quicker to drive in and just sit in the traffic than mess about doing
park and rides and then travelling in.

~~~
isostatic
It was far quicker to walk a mile to Twyford station, get the train to Ealing,
and the tube to White City (or fast train to Paddington and tube to Shepherds
Bush now) than to drive.

It was a long time ago, and I don't work in Shepherds Bush any more, but the
trip today would be

    
    
      0835 - leave home
      0856 - get slow train to London
      0935 - arrive Ealing 
      0950 - arrive White City
      0955 - arrive at office
    

Or

    
    
      0840 - leave home
      0900 - get fast train to London
      0932 - arrive Paddington
      0950 - arrive White City
      0955 - arrive at office
    

Driving was

    
    
      0800 - leave home
      0900 - arrive Hammersmith flyover turnoff
      0950 - arrive car park
      0955 - arrive at office
    

It was the hammersmith roundabout that was the real killer.

The reason I drove in for 10AM (once a week) was because I was on 12-14 hour
shifts, and driving home after 10pm was about 50 minutes. Very few people
working office hours would drive into London, especially Central London, and
parking at stations across the south east is often full by 9AM.

~~~
davesmith1983
Interesting tbh if it was the same amount of time I would just drive in.

Outside of London the train is always slower. I used to live in Manchester and
get the train into Stoke. Driving was always faster without exception.
Generally it was cheaper as well (I have a crappy old diesel astra that is
even cheaper to repair and I will drive it til the wheels fall off).

~~~
isostatic
All things being equal I'd rather take the train - you can read, work, watch
TV

The main benefit of driving is not having to wait for a specific train.

From where I live in south cheshire, it's quicker to get the train into
Manchester than drive (although quicker to drive to Stoke than train). That's
with a 0930 arrival in Picadilly Gardens.

Same to get to Cardiff, Birmingham and certainly London (2h15 to Euston, vs
2h40 to the M25 with no traffic)

If I had to be in Picadilly Gardens for 0900 though it would be faster to
drive thanks to the train times.

~~~
davesmith1983
Virgin trains wants basically another 10-15 a month on top of your journey for
internet and you can't take a bike on their trains without phoning ahead
first. Cross country aren't much better.

Phone internet doesn't work on the train typically. That combined with the
travel sickness after each journey make the car much more appealing.

I will never go back to using the train as long as I can legally drive. They
are just garbage in the UK and expensive.

I doubt I will buy a new car either. I own two cars. I have an old 1994
mercedes SL which is kept in a storage garage at the moment and the other car
is a 2005 vauxhall astra that is getting up to 400,000 miles and doesn't show
any signs of dying just yet. Every newer car I have driven is full of mostly
electric crap which tends to break or they have some awful drive by wire
nonsense that takes the feeling out of the vehicle.

I think much like the operating systems I use, I am going to resist using any
newer tech as long as I am able to.

~~~
isostatic
I use 4G tethering and works really well between Crewe and Manchester (well
enough for uninterupted youtube streaming and ssh sessions). Virgin
"pendilinos" have free wifi now too. Northern run on the Manchester-Stoke line
and don't need bike reservations. YMMV.

~~~
davesmith1983
Yeh well I gave catching the train a chance (I was riding trains for about 10
years before I could afford a car) and driving is much easier.

------
m0zg
I lived in a city with extensive public transportation infrastructure (Moscow)
for 7 years without a car. TBH, I would not trade my current suburban US
lifestyle for a high density city. Want groceries? Gotta carry them in all the
way from the store (which usually within walking distance, but still, shit's
heavy unless you buy groceries every day, which can be quite wasteful). Job
not within walking distance (which it rarely is)? Say hello to 1-2hrs of daily
commute (about 35 min of which for me was walking). Kid has hobbies that
aren't within walking distance? Pain. Need to get something from a store
that's not nearby (i.e. hardware, household goods)? Long commute _and_ carry
stuff as well. Need to get something you can't carry? Gotta rent a car or pay
for delivery. It's snowing or raining? Tough luck, gotta walk to the subway
and/or store all the same. Etc, etc. Hundreds of these situations where in the
US I just get into a car and go wherever I want. I don't even get wet if it's
raining outside.

This "car-less" stuff only looks good (on paper) to two categories of people:

    
    
      1. Europeans who never had a car and therefore don't fully understand the upsides
      2. Americans who never lived without a car and therefore don't fully understand the downsides

~~~
esoterica
The wheel is 5,000 years old. How did you spend 7 years walking to the grocery
store without realizing you could buy a cart instead of carrying your
groceries by hand?

Also I live in a dense city and have a 10 minute subway commute. A regular
city lifestyle does not involve a 2 hour commute, you just lived too far from
work for your own good.

~~~
m0zg
Moscow is quite large, and it is unlikely that your job will be nearby. You
should consider yourself lucky if you have only a 10 minute commute, few
people are lucky like that. Just getting to the city center (where the job is
likely to be) from the periphery (where one is likely to live) can easily
take: 10 minutes walking, 5 or so minutes waiting for the right bus to get to
the nearest subway station, 5-7 minutes of riding the bus, 15-20 minutes
riding the subway (more if there are transfers), etc. That's one way. And it
assumes you don't have to ride the bus or walk much on the other end (which is
often not the case). In the winter the above ground part of the journey
implies -30C weather conditions, slippery sidewalks, and other "fun"
challenges.

------
blunte
If you are willing or able to live within reach of public transport or
bike/walking, a no-car life is awesome. I did many years of tense heavy US
traffic before I moved to NL, and I must say it's so awesome to not own or
care about a car.

The US is mostly not designed for car-free situations. That's a long story,
but it ends in "limited decent public transport options". To go into that
topic would be too political here. Suffice to say, unless you live in a
progressive part of the US (or you move to within walking range of your job),
you need a car.

Europe has the advantage? of being much older, when cities were more dense.
There's no place to affordably park a car, so you must walk or bike, or use a
bus/tram (or metro/train if you're lucky).

There are certainly times in summer in the Netherlands during peak time when a
full train (standing room only) really truly sucks. But that's less than 1/4
of the year. The rest of the time I can work, sleep, look at the attractive
fit people, or even talk to people. My days of driving in big Texas city
traffic were certainly not that. (Guns actually do get plucked out of glove
boxes and waved as a threat from time to time.)

~~~
patrickfatrick
I think it’s possible to live car-free in many cities in the US but the
difference is you can’t conveniently get very far without a car. In Paris not
only can you live car-free but you can go all over the place, different
countries even, by train, pretty conveniently. In the US you’ll be restricted
to travel within the core of a city and that perk comes with a massive premium
so it’s likely you can’t even afford it. Living car-free in the US might as
well be a status symbol.

------
primitur
I love my electric moped. Riding it around my European big-city, it just feels
so comforting. Its so quiet, it doesn't scare ducks.

Scooters are taking over - Vienna is a green city that has had time to refine
its transportation culture over a millenia. Parts of it were built for horses.

When I'm on my electric moped, I ride it like a horse. No need to over-do it
and speed, or whatever, just pace along at a trot. There's a harmonic spot
where the curves and corners of the city suddenly become super-fluid, and I
even get all the green lights .. I'm pretty sure its because the physical
geometry is designed for horses, and the electric moped drive train can
approximate that.

Anyway, I can't wait until all the cars disappear. Europe is going to be even
more beautiful.

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
One problem though: as of today, shared electric moped/scooters are actually
worse for the environment than privately-owned ICE cars.

Source:
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2da8](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2da8)

~~~
fit2rule
Sort of seems like you didn't read your own quote:

"When e-scooter usage replaces average personal automobile travel, we nearly
universally realize a net reduction in environmental impacts."

This is not the same as "actually worse for the environment than privately-
owned ICE cars", and I'm guessing you've got a reason for your FUD?

I ride electric, too. Mine is charged by solar power. Sure, it took a lot of
carbon to get my systems in place - but that's still 100x better than the
daily emissions I'm no longer producing.

------
vladojsem
I was in Antwerp this year for the first time thus I can agree with the
article. It really is super easy to move around with the bike. Countries like
Belgium, Holland, and Denmark are famous for that. They even have big parking
lots for bicycles next to train stations. So that you can come by train, pick
up your bike and continue your way. And they do so despite bad weather.

In general, in the European cities east Berlin wall, the bicycle
infrastructure is not that great. Yet, there are European funds that close
that gap and you can see many cycling roads in countries like Poland or
Hungary.

There are also European bicycle 'highways' called Eurovelo that are being
built from the European money. I think Europe is going into the right
direction.

------
bambax
Surprising how the comments so far (351) seem to be debating car vs. public
transport, while the original article was more about car vs. other means of
personal transportation, including bikes, ebikes and scooters:

> _Two wheels good, four wheels bad_

Most car rides are done with just one person at the wheel (or in the case of
Uber/Lyft, a driver and just one rider). The size and weight of the vehicle is
the problem.

A bike weights 30% or less of the weight of the rider; a car, 300% or more.
That we consider "normal" or even acceptable to move so much metal to
transport us, is simply unreasonable and crazy.

~~~
11235813213455
let alone if you're on your bike and get slammed by a car

------
chenlianmt
Just left Paris this week. I was surprised to see how many electric scooters
are on the road. But out of the experience riding them in central Paris, I
found them - 1. being too expensive: riding Lime for 1.5 km cost me 4 euros,
way more expensive than metro; 2. being difficult to ride: riding scooter is
hard because the acceleration and brake is too sudden for beginners and it's
easy to lose control when encountering hard obstacles on the road; 3. central
Paris is not scooter-friendly because lots of road are made of stones and
there are not many bike-routes as I see.

------
systematical
Was in Europe for six weeks last Summer and I saw plenty of cars. The only
city that seemed close to a post-car future was Amerstdam. The others I
visited: Dublin, London, Barcelona, Brussels, and Prague all had plenty of
cars. Now, that's not to say you needed them, but Amersterdam seemed to be the
only one where it was evident that people were really embracing no cars. Of
couse those are just cities, I never got out into the countryside much except
for Ireland and the Czech Republic. Not much public transit out there.

------
tinyhouse
It's a great idea for cities but despite what many people here are saying, I
don't see myself selling my car any time soon.

I live in the Boston area and until about 2 years ago didn't own a car. I
don't need it for commute since I bike or take the train. The public transit
in Boston and nearby towns is decent. But if you want to go to a town farther
away you're usually out of luck. Car sharing is great but it wasn't a good
enough solution for me.

Zipcar started in the Boston area and overall there are many options today
such as Turo and others. The problem is that these services are at peak demand
when you need them the most. During the week there are many Zipcars available
in my area but I usually don't need a car then. On the weekend when the
weather is nice and I need a car to go hiking, everyone else needs a car too
and if I didn't book in advance I need to travel across town for an available
car. And twice I did it just to find out there was a problem with the car.
(that was the breaking point for me and led me to cancel my Zipcar membership
and buy a car).

There are other problems too. Now we have a kid and need a carseat. That makes
Uber/Lyft much more of a hassle. We're not gonna travel around carrying a
carseat. Many of the people here commenting probably don't have kids.

Having a car on the weekends is just convenient. The carseat is already
installed. The hiking/beach gear is all in the trunk. We have a bike rack and
go on biking trips (some car sharing companies let you book a car with a rack
but those are more limited). For us it wasn't even a big investment, we got a
great car for $6500 which we only use on the weekends and so far had no
issues.

------
benou
It is interesting how many comments focus on anecdotal evidence ("it is very
hard to live without a car where I live so it can't be done anywhere") or on
exceptions ("what if you cannot walk because you're too old?" "what if you
need to move your sofa?"...). It is typical for a lot of discussions about
cars.

The article is about dense European cities. Not about <insert your prefered
coutryside area here>. Nobody argues you do not need a car in the countryside.
In cities in the other hand, cars take a lot of (pricey) space, generate noise
and pollution. And when you need one, you can rent one, borrow one or use a
taxi/uber/lyft.

And as we are talking about dense cities, the usual argument of "but wait, US
is not as dense, we need cars!" is moot. US cities need cars because of being
designed for cars. That's it, and that could be changed but that would require
massive investments.

~~~
gerwitz
Indeed, I am a bit tired of all the reasons my city (Amsterdam) is unworkable
or simply impossible, because it doesn't resemble [Springfield].

------
JackPoach
Edging? It's been the case for Europe for a few decades all along. You can
live perfectly fine in Berlin without a car. You'll never need it. U-Bahn,
S-Bahn, DB work perfectly. Lots of bike lanes everywhere.

------
762236
I think downtown Palo Alto should close off University to cars, and give it a
try. Turn it into a big pedestrian zone, and let the restaurants put seating
out in the space that this opens up.

------
jaimex2
Makes sense as European cities were designed and built before the car. For us
in the new world I'm afraid our foundations in suburbia have locked us in.

------
pjmlp
Kind of.

As a lucky one to live in one of those future cities, yes it is cool to move
around.

However living on the suburbs or not being lucky to live in a few selected
cities per country and it is back to choosing between 1h - 2h of commute time
due to multiple exchanges and schedule times, or do the same way in about 30m.

Good that we are making progress, but not every city is Amsterdam, Berlin,
Rome, Antwerp... nor everyone happens to live in the city center.

------
aivisol
I was wondering how people who live in cities in carless mode manage when they
have kids. Since I could not find by simply skimming the comments, I searched
for "kids" keyword, but so far it only appears twice in 200+ comments. Do
people move out of cities immediately when they have kids or they have no
opinion about this topic?

~~~
Mashimo
I live in Denmark, don't have a kids though. While I bike myself I often see
parents who transport their kids in bikes with 2 front wheels and a box. They
also got a cover and are thus protected from the elements. Also busses and
trains have areas for baby strollers. At some point kids can also bike them
self.

I don't know how many are completely carless. I don't think I know a parent
who is. Most have one car, but also use public transportation / bike when
possible.

------
tkahnoski
It would seem logical that this is easier in cities that existed before the
car vs cities that existed after. Those cities would have had sufficient
residential and commercial density that the adapted to facilitating travel by
car and truck and could more easily adapt back vs what we see with post-car
cities that are sprawling.

------
kristianp
[https://outline.com/hrKMMW](https://outline.com/hrKMMW)

------
kolleykibber
It's curious to me that you see the same arguments and rebuttals in all US v
Europe discussions (usually over gun control or transportation). I also find
it curious that I find myself reading them every time. Wasn't the FAQ supposed
to fix this?

------
francisofascii
I am visiting Montréal on holdiday today with my family. Old Montreal by the
waterfront was a wonderful pedestrian experience. I recently read that they
had proposed a highway in the same area back in the 60s. What fools we were.

------
Pete-Codes
Edinburgh has some pretty cool plans for making more streets pedestrianised.
It also helps that these streets are popular with tourists so doesn't make
sense for cars to be going around a medieval city centre.

~~~
admg
It sure does, Edinburgh also no plans to make life easier and sustainable for
families who actually live here. Train services are unreliable, ever
increasing property prices in the city itself and even the satelite towns are
getting more expensive. Commuting into Edinburgh is a nightmare and likely to
get worse.

------
VBprogrammer
Is there a law of headlines which makes anything which groups the whole of
Europe demonstrably false? Car free in London or Paris, sure. Car free in
Glasgow or Birmingham, no thanks.

It's probably almost as true for the USA.

------
ThomPete
I am unconvinced about this claim.

Sure there are a lot of movements towards getting cars out of the city, but
very little is done to compensate for how to get resources in and out so it
will naturally have limits.

------
piotr1212
The Hague is now building large residential towers next to the three largest
train stations. People who will live there will have no right to get a parking
permit.

------
dalbasal
This is kind of tangent, but..

What's the state of startup-ish public transit? Carpooling Ubers or app-based
(rather than route-based) bus systems?

Anything interesting happening?

------
Havoc
Can't come soon enough.

Cars within dense cities are a cancer.

------
xbeta
Most East Asian cities are very walkable, because of the dense population.

Some great examples, Seoul, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, etc

------
stakhanov
The flipside of the coin needs to be mentioned too. What Europe is doing
around zoning and infrastructure is, as is often the case, the "Big
Government" model, compared to the U.S.'s more "Small Government" approach.

I get the impression that, outside of a few major metropolitan areas with real
estate booms, most areas within the U.S. have been comparatively more
successful than most areas within Europe at enabling decently-sized real
estate at affordable prices and at enabling the younger generation to get on
the real estate ladder without their parents' help.

Cities where infrastructure is super-dense and everything is walkable, like
NYC and many European city centers are nice for young people, students,
urban/digital nomads, tourists, etc.

When you get to a certain age and want to settle down and start a family,
priorities start to change and you realize how trapped you are, with the
European model.

You're paying a fortune to rent a shoebox. Add to that the high taxes and
mandatory social security that exists in Europe. This means, you find yourself
in a situation where you're wealthy but cash poor, and have little opportunity
to accumulate wealth in the form of cash. (The kind of cash that would be
needed as a down-payment on larger real estate).

The option that people exercise in the U.S. is "move to the burbs". ...but
this option is not so readily available in Europe. Here, high standards of
infrastructure are enforced before planning permission for residential
development in suburbs/exurbs can even be granted. This means that this kind
of real estate is pricey pretty much the day it becomes viable to build there.
Further out, in properly rural areas, zoning laws will often permit building
there only when buildings have an actual agricultural purpose.

The car plays a pretty important part in that: Rezone a bunch of agricultural
land into residential. Build some roads that go there and connect it to the
powergrid and telecommunication network. Boom. Affordable real estate. People
can move there, and after you have enough people, you can start to think about
public transportation, schools, things to do, and all that other stuff. But
you do that AFTER it has become economically viable to offer that stuff, not
as a prerequisite for allowing people to build there. This is, in my mind,
something that the U.S. has a lot of and that we could really use more of in
Europe.

~~~
wffurr
>> When you get to a certain age and want to settle down and start a family,
priorities start to change and you realize how trapped you are, with the
European model.

It's hard to overstate how happy I would be if the street outside my apartment
wasn't a canyon of speeding vehicular death for a toddler.

I love everything about living in the city with my child except for the sheer
number of cars that pass through in the name of "freedom" and for a lack of
decent alternatives. It's a short walk or bicycle ride to any number of
amenities, and a short commute to work means I can spend more time at home
with him.

I didn't like the car traffic before, and I hate it even more now. If there
was a car free city on the US Eastern seaboard with an office for my employer,
I would move there in a hot second.

~~~
stakhanov
What I'm saying:

Cars are really only a problem in densely populated cities. But they are also
the thing that makes less-densely populated areas viable to live at.

Public transport is what makes it possible to live without a car. But public
transport is only economically viable in densely populated areas.

So: This equation resolves into something pretty obvious: Have car-free
cities, but also continue car-based development of areas of lesser density,
probably with "park and ride" being the interface.

Making the car and low population density out to be the devil and a remnant of
the past, and car-free high-density development to be the future and solution
of all transport-problems is a completely one-sided view.

~~~
wffurr
You said a lot of stuff, and that wasn't my takeaway from it.

What's completely one-sided is development patterns and land regulation in
much of the developed world and especially in the United States that favor
detached housing and single occupancy vehicle commutes over any other form.

------
bookofjoe
[http://archive.is/eUpyE](http://archive.is/eUpyE)

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/eUpyE](http://archive.is/eUpyE)

------
bartimus
When the weather is nice in my city every last electric scooter is parked at
the beach.

~~~
mxscho
Seems like individual non-fixed prices could be some kind of undiscovered Holy
Grail to increase revenue and fix the unequal distribution of scooters. Also,
I see scooters being collected at night for charging. Maybe another use-case
for such incentives?

------
gerbilly
Awesome.

Who needs the hype of self driving cars if you can get rid of the cars
entirely?

------
dewijones92
Can't wait :)

------
pier25
When I lived for 4 years in Barcelona I didn't have a car and I lived pretty
far from the city center (Horta). I only missed it when I went to the Ikea of
Badalona.

------
countryqt30
Germany love <3

------
plazmatic
Good! Americas obsession with cars is one of its most glaring deficiencies.
Every city should be accessible without a car, however unless you are in NYC,
Chicago, or LA, or San Fran, well then that just isn't true.|

~~~
beefalo
I would definitely not include LA on a list for accessible without a car, and
San Francisco is debatable.

~~~
comicjk
I have taken several trips to Los Angeles without using a car. It's not
convenient, but it works if you allow enough time - the bus lines do at least
exist.

------
colechristensen
A thought in the back of my mind is fear of government oppression in a world
without prevalent cars.

If you have a car you can travel hundreds of miles with few limitations and
it's particularly hard to quash this even in an oppressive state.

If you only have your feet and public transit you are very limited to distance
and location and tracking movements is an easy feature of the system. Things
going wrong? The government can shut down the trains at whim.

A car grants a whole lot of freedom that many progressive people are really
excited to give away.

~~~
bllguo
an interesting point but such a quintessentially american mindset imo. This
thing could potentially used wrong so let's build in all kinds of hedges and
failsafes; our freedoms could be impinged in these edge cases so this is a no
go, etc.

cannot help but lament the inefficiency and stagnation arising from this
culture of distrust

~~~
oblio
Sorry to the American folks here, this might sound offensive, but I agree with
bllguo. As an European colechchristensen's point of view feels alien.

I'd argue that for the average European this kind of comment would seem
paranoid bordering on insane.

I guess some cultural differences are found way deeper than you'd expect.

The European point of view about the whole "government opression" thing is
that you don't fight tyranny with guns and cars (LOL), but with a population
educated about the benefits of democracy. If you've lost the people, nothing
can save you.

~~~
whatusername
on the cultural differences.. I've always loved the saying: Europeans see
100km as a long distance, while Americans/Australians see 100 years as a long
time.

~~~
baud147258
Well, 100 km is next door when there's a direct rail line and when discussing
with my granparents, 100 years is a long time. I get what you mean though

------
Causality1
I'm glad this works for the people who live there and makes them happy. As for
myself, I refuse to live in any city dense enough to even have a public
transportation system.

~~~
flaque
In a lot of places, even 100 person villages have a regular bus system. This
isn't about density, it's about infrastructure.

