Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seven major European cities are outright BANNING cars from their city centers.[/b] Obviously deliveries are still being made and I haven't see any news articles about people dying because the ambulance couldn't get to them. People are getting to outlying train stations somehow (busses help a lot, driverless Uber supposedly in the near future). So I think we can do well by adopting some of their practices which are already working, "disfavoring" SOVs, and giving more priority to busses, city service vehicles, business service vehicles, and yes, Uber and eventually self-driving Uber when needed for the "last mile" too. One way is to have congestion tolling. Not politically viable in the US, but it does in fact work well around the world. Charge tolls according to supply and demand that are appropriate to keep roads less congested for deliveries, city and emergency services to be able to get around. Another possibility which is already being done but needs to be done A LOT more is bus lanes, BAT (business access and transit) lanes, replacing street parking with loading zones and enforcing them. Of course, you do need transit for these to work most effectively! My point is we don't need to *prioritize* SOVs in order to accommodate them. You'd be surprised how many SOV trips are in fact flexible and can be done during times of less congestion--I've seen estimates of 40% of cars on the road during rush hour! The reality here in the US is, unlike those European cities, we really do have to accommodate SOVs at least in the short term, but in a congested city, they should not get equal priority. It can't just be a free-for-all or everybody is delayed--including critical city and emergency services! It is the modern day tragedy of the commons.
Document these total bans.
Last edited by nei; 03-09-2017 at 11:15 AM..
Reason: fixed quote
So I think we can do well by adopting some of their practices which are already working, "disfavoring" SOVs, and giving more priority to busses, city service vehicles, business service vehicles, and yes, Uber and eventually self-driving Uber when needed for the "last mile" too.
Ultimately, you run up against fear: of the new and of loss aversion.
We like what we're familiar with, even when it contradicts other things that we also like. We like walkable places, but we want lots of "free" parking and easy access by personal car. And a world less reliant on the personal vehicle is unfamiliar: we cede some control over our ability to come and go exactly as we please; we also cede the ability to shop exactly on our terms.
And has been made quite clear on this forum over the years is that people really are uncomfortable--without passing judgment--with not having ample on-street parking at home, at work, or while shopping, or that the way they shop or commute might change.
Ultimately, you run up against fear: of the new and of loss aversion.
We like what we're familiar with, even when it contradicts other things that we also like. We like walkable places, but we want lots of "free" parking and easy access by personal car. And a world less reliant on the personal vehicle is unfamiliar: we cede some control over our ability to come and go exactly as we please; we also cede the ability to shop exactly on our terms.
And has been made quite clear on this forum over the years is that people really are uncomfortable--without passing judgment--with not having ample on-street parking at home, at work, or while shopping, or that the way they shop or commute might change.
The reason for this is because the car is much better for many of life's tasks than public transit. Why cede anything..... Public transit has it's uses, but on a whole it is just less flexible than the car. Need to be at work at 6a.m.?(no problem for the car). Need to go in three different directions without transferring(again no problem for the car). I live in an actually city and really outside of downtown(and even for some trips there) the car is usually the better option.
The reason for this is because the car is much better for many of life's tasks than public transit. Why cede anything..... Public transit has it's uses, but on a whole it is just less flexible than the car. Need to be at work at 6a.m.?(no problem for the car). Need to go in three different directions without transferring(again no problem for the car). I live in an actually city and really outside of downtown(and even for some trips there) the car is usually the better option.
What you did there was respond to an assertion that I didn't make.
Also, what you did was assert that the car is the best choice and superior to other modes, which implicitly means for the individual.
But is it financially superior for the individual? Not always. Is it superior for the city, state, or federal governments, which have to build and maintain our roadways? Sometimes yes, sometimes it's not immediately clear, and sometimes obviously not. Is it superior for the neighborhood? Given how expensive walkable neighborhoods are and how traffic calming is one of the most frequent demands in San Jose, clearly designing for the car was not the absolutely superior choice. Is it superior for "society," for all of us taken as a whole? Well, there's a lot of evidence about how vehicle emissions are harmful to our health.
What you did there was respond to an assertion that I didn't make.
Also, what you did was assert that the car is the best choice and superior to other modes, which implicitly means for the individual.
But is it financially superior for the individual? Not always.
It can be because it allows you to work at times and places that might not be accessible by transit or might not be efficient to get to by transit.
Quote:
Is it superior for the city, state, or federal governments, which have to build and maintain our roadways? Sometimes yes, sometimes it's not immediately clear, and sometimes obviously not. Is it superior for the neighborhood? Given how expensive walkable neighborhoods are and how traffic calming is one of the most frequent demands in San Jose, clearly designing for the car was not the absolutely superior choice. Is it superior for "society," for all of us taken as a whole? Well, there's a lot of evidence about how vehicle emissions are harmful to our health.
When the radius of how far you can go(to work, to shopping) is shrunk(due to using slower methods of transit) costs can go up. i.e. Need to live near that train line or else the commute to work gets much slower or expensive.
It can be because it allows you to work at times and places that might not be accessible by transit or might not be efficient to get to by transit.
That is true, as it allows access to locations too distant to reasonably reach by other means (PT, ridesharing, bike, walking).
But the private car also creates a new price floor, which means the benefits need to be appropriate for that new floor. So the financial benefit isn't always a given.
Last edited by darkeconomist; 03-09-2017 at 01:35 PM..
What you did there was respond to an assertion that I didn't make.
Also, what you did was assert that the car is the best choice and superior to other modes, which implicitly means for the individual.
But is it financially superior for the individual? Not always. Is it superior for the city, state, or federal governments, which have to build and maintain our roadways? Sometimes yes, sometimes it's not immediately clear, and sometimes obviously not. Is it superior for the neighborhood? Given how expensive walkable neighborhoods are and how traffic calming is one of the most frequent demands in San Jose, clearly designing for the car was not the absolutely superior choice. Is it superior for "society," for all of us taken as a whole? Well, there's a lot of evidence about how vehicle emissions are harmful to our health.
Is the city as an entity supposed to be used to alter the scales of "society" - city vs. the individuals?
A "neighborhood" is not an entity at all.
Inserting non-existent entities into fuzzy non-persons such as "society" is intended to put the thumb on the scales against people.
Ultimately, you run up against fear: of the new and of loss aversion.
We like what we're familiar with, even when it contradicts other things that we also like. We like walkable places, but we want lots of "free" parking and easy access by personal car. And a world less reliant on the personal vehicle is unfamiliar: we cede some control over our ability to come and go exactly as we please; we also cede the ability to shop exactly on our terms.
And has been made quite clear on this forum over the years is that people really are uncomfortable--without passing judgment--with not having ample on-street parking at home, at work, or while shopping, or that the way they shop or commute might change.
But the private car also creates a new price floor, which means the benefits need to be appropriate for that new floor. So the financial benefit isn't always a given.
Even the Joads had a truck. During the Great Depression, no less.
Even the Joads had a truck. During the Great Depression, no less.
Nonetheless, a car comes with a basket of costs--tires, oil, gas, repairs, insurance, etc.--and any benefit that comes from private vehicle ownership has to overcome those costs.
When I ask if it is always financially superior for the individual, I ask that on net and in comparison to other modes in an equivalent context, on net. It is incomplete to just point to the benefits of private car ownership, and it is incomplete to point to the costs of other modes in a car-centric built form.
What net value does a car bring in an auto-centric layout? How does that compare to the net benefit of other modes in layouts that are predominantly designed around that mode?
When I talk about preference for familiarity and about loss aversion--the latter of which has been around in microeconomics since the 1970s and represents a distinct break from the classical description of individuals as rational decision makers--I'm talking about the biases the limit the willingness to make that apples-to-apples comparison.
So, once again, I ask questions about the net value of private vehicle ownership. Is private car ownership financially superior for the individual? Sometimes, but only in specific situations. Is it superior for the city, state, or federal governments, which have to build and maintain our roadways? Sometimes there is a clear net benefit, sometimes there is a clear net loss, and sometimes the situation is hard to describe. Is it superior for the neighborhood? Given how in demand walkable neighborhoods are and given that traffic calming is one of the most frequent demands of the city council, SJ DOT, and SJPD in San Jose, clearly designing for the car was not the absolutely superior choice for the neighborhoods. Is it superior for "society," for all of us taken as a whole? Well, there's a preponderance of evidence describing how vehicle emissions are harmful to our health and how those harms increase in magnitude and/or frequency as vehicle volumes increase.
I recognize, too, that it is important to ask these same questions of other modes in environments that are centric to the mode. Buses aren't always good on net. But buses and trains and bikes and walking all have their place in which they are beneficial, on net.
I'm not saying cars are bad, far from it. What I've always said is that cars are a tool. As a tool, they are good at some things in some situations, but not at or in others. A hammer is an essential part of any tool kit, but it cannot be the only tool in that kit. You need wrenches and screwdrivers and saws and so on. And we need to look at private cars as one tool in a kit of tools.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
