Display:
What's wrong with cars? Is it the carbon consideration, the safety problem, or a philosophical viewpoint?
by asdf on Mon Jul 20th, 2009 at 11:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They're noisy, they take up space, they kill people and they pollute (including, but not limited to green house gas pollution). And in an urban environment, cars can't do anything that a well-designed urban rail system can't do better.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 03:49:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not gunscars, it's people.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 04:45:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... ammunition does.

In the same way, the damage to walkable, sustainable urban development is the parking places ... but the car-dependency creates the "need" for parking places.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jul 24th, 2009 at 01:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The parking places are a big problem, but not an insurmountable one. Mostly, it is a problem that goes away on its own if you provide a bus system and pretend that parking problems don't exist. Then motorists will go and take the bus instead.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 24th, 2009 at 03:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That seems like its saying, "if you solve the problem, then it will go away on its own".

Indeed, that simple recipe seems very much like the recipe for Grizzly Bear Soup that begins, "first, capture, kill and clean one Grizzly Bear". "Pretending that parking problems don't exist" requires eliminating the auto dependency for a substantial share of the population, or else it is politically infeasible, and "provide a bus system" is not the universal panacea for breaking auto dependency.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jul 24th, 2009 at 04:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not solve the problem and watch it go away. Provide a stop-gap measure and then use the bully pulpit to assert that the problem is the car drivers' own damn fault for blocking better public options.

But then again, I live in a world in which a city without a bus system - however rudimentary - is as unthinkable as a city without sidewalks for pedestrians, electricity or plumbing, so that might affect my thinking...

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 24th, 2009 at 06:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I live in a county with one regular daily bus route outside of the University town ... and that only has that regular bus route because the University and County bus systems merged.

When over 80% of workers in a town require a car to get to work, getting into the bully pulpit to blame the large majority for blocking better public options and then staying in the bully pulpit is problematic.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jul 24th, 2009 at 06:19:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It may not be a universal panacea, but I think the below will tend to work in most places in the US if you can get the local council to do it and survive possible referendums.

  1. charge money for parking space
  2. use the money to pay for public transportation and bike lanes
  3. limit parking spaces and increase fees
  4. build a few pedestrian and bike bridges/tunnels/crossings to the supermarket across the highway
  5. profit!
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jul 29th, 2009 at 05:54:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are a lot of problems with cars. What I think is the largest problem is that they exclude the use of the street as a public space (for non-car purposes) in residential areas.

Though you can alleviate some of that by using a shared space concept and limiting cars to 15 kilometres an hour outside of the main streets, and 30 in general in residential areas.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 04:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right now it is not unusual to find speed limits of 50km/h (30mph) in towns, 30km/h (18mph) in residential areas, and lower on occasion (such as, near schools?).

The biggest problem with cars is city planning around car use. I live 800m away from a Supermarket which I can go to by tram (1 stop) or drive to, but I can't walk to. Suburban America is coming to Europe - except in America there is so much space for roads that Riverside, CA had more bike lanes on streets 5 years ago than I expect Madrid to have 5 years from now.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 04:43:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
30 km/h is way too fast : it means a small kid can't be left unattended at all. Whereas 10 km/h, and a culture that on a small street, the car has no priority, means a group of kids can play in the street with casual supervision, for example.

Paris apartments are way too small now - they weren't 100 years ago when kids casually played in the street.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 09:58:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Adding to the others', going off another direction: non-car-liveability is also about not having to depend on cars for transport, on having an alternative.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 06:34:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series