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.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but yeah, clearly there are a lot of folks who don't understand how NYC works. The reason why so many people don't own cars isn't because they don't want to, it can just be too much of an headache/expense to own one. Since transit is to a level where you do need one, people opt for them. That doesn't take the desire away though.
When you go out to the other four boroughs, car usage skyrockets. Why? Because it's not such a hassle to own a car there.
someone gets what "car-free" means.
Car free doesn't mean one doesn't need any vehicles in his life any more. Trucks, taxis etc will always be there in an urban setting. It simply means owning a car causes too much hassle and expenses (parking, insurance, gas etc) than not owning one, and that not owning cars but depending on public transit 95% of the time for whatever we do doesn't hugely impact your quality of life - but rather enhances it as a result of ease and promptness of travel, less stress etc.
I live a car free life for the past 7 years. Occasionally I do hope I have a car but the cost of parking ($250 a month), insurance (200+ a month), and gas (varies) simply isn't worth the marginal convenience it provides because I live literally 1 minute from a subway station as well as walking distance to three streetcars, not to mention pretty much everything I ever need within 15-20 minutes of walking distance. What the hell do I want a car that costs $600 a month just so I can go to the suburbs once a month? I save $7000 a year and travel internationally at least twice a year, plus paying off my mortgage a lot faster and dining out a lot more frequently.
On the other hand, in the suburbs and not-so-central part of the city, cars are inexpensive to have but provide great transport convenience compared with walking because everything is spaced apart - those people may be car free too, but it makes much less sense to them because not having a car would be sacrifice a lot of things.
Honestly, the only thing I often think I need a car for is for grocery shopping because carrying back those bags, even when transit is available, is still a hassle. But still, a $10 taxi every week solves everywhere, still way cheaper than spending hundreds of dollars on a car I have use for 5 times a month.
In my post, I was responding to the article's definition of a car-free city, which is a city in which private individuals do not use cars.
So people responding about cities with no cars understand what car-free means to an individual. I am pretty sure we all know the usual suspects for car-free living in the US - NYC, SF, Boston, DC, etc.
The article suggested Boston as the US's first completely car-free city, and I would agree if they were able to upgrade the "T" and heavily invest in improving their average-at-best bus service and making the bike share ubiquitous. Boston is really small, you can walk almost anywhere in Central Boston if you have the time. If cabs were also allowed, I think lower Manhattan and perhaps central SF could pull it off too.
I agree that certain zones in NYC seem like they would be ready for this type of development. I also agree with the author that Boston would be a perfect candidate if they get their transit priorities in order and invest in the MBTA, because pedestrian wise its an excellent city.
A sleeper may be Montreal, and I think that may be the city I actually vote for. Great commitment to pedestrian only streets, strong Metro system and just a pleasure of a city to walk through in general.
1. Montreal
2. Boston
3. NYC
4. DC
Those would be the main contenders.
Strong metro systeme Montreal?
3 lines plus a tiny yellow 2 stops line...
No way mtl can even be ahead of nyc, even ot ahead of dc and boston...
I can name a handfull of cities who will be ahead of montreal.
The 2010 best north american comute systeme was for the bus, train and metro
1. NYC
well at this point is my opinion.
2. Boston
3. DC
4. Toronto thanks to the streetcars
5. SF
6. Mtl
Mackinac Island Michigan is already 90% motor vehicle free.
I like driving and will defend it to the death, but on another note having a car-free city (ie: pedestrian only roads) is bad. Ambulances, Firetrucks, Police, Commercial/Utility/Delivery, etc all need motor vehicles. Plus many people who are disabled, elderly or injured.
You can't just assume everyone has the same levels of mobility. What are people with MS supposed to do?
Not to mention this not going to allivate traffic, it's simply going to replace it. The lines for trains/buses/helicopters/jetpacks/stagecoaches/etc will to the moon and back.
On a small island resort this might work, but it's not feasible in a largely populated area.
Sure, there will be plenty of cities that become more car-free friendly than they already are, but until a superior form of personal transport comes around the car is here to stay.
No, I don't think so. There is one major design flaw (well two, if you consider it provides no protection from weather): Most people look like dbags when they ride them. Close, but no cigar.
Obviously two different things. Many cities are already a car free lifestyle if you want. I haven't had a car in over 13 years in Chicago. I make six figures with no debt, so it's my lifestyle choice as opposed to a result of economics or something else holding me back. I know many people like this, most of my friends here, and of course many other cities.
Car free altogether - I would assume none. There's no reason for it. I don't think it would be helpful to any city to bar cars.
Mackinac Island Michigan is already 90% motor vehicle free.
I like driving and will defend it to the death, but on another note having a car-free city (ie: pedestrian only roads) is bad. Ambulances, Firetrucks, Police, Commercial/Utility/Delivery, etc all need motor vehicles. Plus many people who are disabled, elderly or injured.
You can't just assume everyone has the same levels of mobility. What are people with MS supposed to do?
Not to mention this not going to allivate traffic, it's simply going to replace it. The lines for trains/buses/helicopters/jetpacks/stagecoaches/etc will to the moon and back.
On a small island resort this might work, but it's not feasible in a largely populated area.
Ahh Mackinac, the essence of candy shops and horse manure.
I believe this is not meant to be taken completely literally. I believe the author is advocating that the main cores of certain cities (Or at least large zones within them) be closed off from cars completely. Copenhagen is an example of a city that has done this successfully.
There are already car free streets in some N. American cities, but large car free zones to that level? I am unable to think of any off the top of my head.
maybe it could be a driver-less car zone/city
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.
