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.
Europe might be able to do it because it is a transportation wonderland (compared to the U.S.) but I suspect it would still lead to a boom in suburban office development, which would be anything but green.
My wife and I worked and lived in NYC during the 80's. We tried to break our car habit but soon found out that we still needed a car for some chores and for visiting our friends in Eastern Connecticut. Even visiting our family in Danbury was effectively impossible because of a lack of public transport even though Danbury was on a commuter rail line.
In addition I find driving, except for commuting, to be a form of relaxation and entertainment. I will sometimes just go for a drive to be alone for a while. So we kept our car in NYC. It was a pain and an expense.
I can see why banning fuel powered vehicles in European Cities would make sense. Among other things the cities would be a lot cleaner. It would be possible because Europe has not had the intensive suburban development. They, by and large, do not convert farm land to housing. They keep farming anyplace that is even remotely flat and terrace the rest for vineyards and hop cultivation. They keep the businesses and factories downtown and much of the workforce simply walks to work of takes the bus or tram. It works quite well for them and with a restructuring of our city zoning laws would work for us.
Considering we have an immense amount of wealth invested in our inefficient suburban housing I do not see banning fuel driven vehicles except for a few cities. Electric battery driven cars make sense in cities with compact business, entertainment and housing cores. NYC and Chicago are example. Houston and Ft Worth are not. Even where we live a battery vehicle would make sense as most of our trips are less than fifty miles. We would be well served by a combination of small electric vehicle and a larger more comfortable “road” car for longer trips. Reasonably priced rental cars would eliminate the need for our owning a fuel powered car.
FWIW – Freedom is more a state of mind than being able to drive when and where you want in your private car or owning and carrying a firearm. So long as I am able to think my thoughts and express my opinion I am a free person. I do not need to demonstrate it to be it.
Not less cars but less FUEL BURNING CARS. That might lead to more tourists. When we visited Europe in the early 80's we traveled by train, bus and feet to and in several Italian cities. If they wanted to improve air quality they would mandate electric scooters and minibikes as well.
As far as creating the electrical energy required by the city cars Europe could adopt the French Nuclear electric standards. They are 70 to 80% nuclear power with fuel recovery and breeding without any accidents. I’ll bet the Opposition to nuclear power in Germany, as in the US, is financed by the Germen coal and oil industry.
Yeah, I read that. I'm actually embarrased for them. No petro or diesel allowed. Now, if they stop using nuclear plants to generate electricity, as Germany is considering, how will they power the EV's, subways, etc...?
Limiting the ability of people to move about freely is the ultimate loss of liberty.
Have you ever been to Europe? Like Siena, Italy for example?
No cars in the main city. It's wonderful. It's clean. It's walkable.
"New York is the only city in the United States where over half of all households do not own a car (Manhattan's non-ownership is even higher - around 75%; nationally, the rate is 8%)"
^ Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation (2001). "Highlights of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey". Retrieved 2006-05-21.
I'm suprised the left hasn't proposed a new form of welfare to help all those poor people in Manhatten without cars. Shouldn't they all be provided with them, like we do with cell phones, housing and medical care for those without?
No driving options, less tourists/visitors, less tourist/visitor income.
LOL
Check out Orvieto, Italy and tell me how they are suffering from not having cars in the central city or in certain TOURIST areas. Or Montepulciano. Or Montalcino. Or Assisi. Or Siena. Or the Cinque Terre.
It ATTRACTS tourists.
Contrast that with Rome, where there are two kinds of pedestrians: the quick, and the dead.
A truly brilliant plan. If you aren't rich you don't get to drive. here comes the bad old days back again.
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.
