I agree entirely. People are also somewhat blinded to it as well. They will complain about how trams slow down car traffic, while they are waiting on foot at a busy intersection that breaks up a shopping precinct. Completely ignoring the enormous impact that cars are having on their current space.
My city has caught on, and there are a bunch of car free streets and alleys being made in the CBD. They have boutiques and restaurants with outdoor seating, and it changes the dynamic of the area entirely. People are relaxed, not rushing, chatting with eachother without yelling . You get a lot more friendly encounters with strangers. It feels like you've reached some kind of special community area, just for you and the others there.
The rest of the traffic is disruptive to the trams.
I also moved to Melbourne recently, and my theory is that the love of trams is inertia from a time where congestion wasn't so bad.
I prefer to walk within the city loop, but both activities would be so much faster and more pleasant without the cars.
There are quite a few Teslas that drive around here with wanky number plates like they're doing the world a favor, which in a city with such usable public transport always makes me cringe.
I live car-free in a dense Canadian urban center and it doesn't lend itself to social interactions with strangers, indeed. Going outside means being assaulted with loud, dangerous car traffic and an absence of places where strangers can, for lack of a better word, "loiter".
If we want to facilitate impromptu social connections we need our streets to be pleasant and and safe from cars so that people want to stay around. Trees, benches, playgrounds, flowers and fountains. This is nothing new, it is how towns have been built for centuries until we sacrificed them in the name of cars and of economic output.
You've missed the forest for the trees. The idea is that with fewer cars we would design our urban areas for walking and cycling. Your apartment block wouldn't have only one grocery store nearby, you would have a thriving ecosystem of local stores and restaurants within walking distance. You would take public transport or cycle to work. This is preferable for many reasons.
Of course, as you point out, this only works if places are designed around local shopping streets and cycle paths, instead of strip malls and freeways smashing through city centres. Obviously we're not there yet, and a car-free life is unattainable for many as a result.
Nobody is saying that this goal is acheivable in the short term. It's an ideal we'd have to work towards gradually, piecing together the required infrastructure and rebuilding the fabric of cities over decades.
FWIW I am lucky enough to live in a high density part of an old city, and it is wonderful. I can walk 8 minutes to a small street of shops with almost everything I need. I can cycle to other parts of the city to enjoy other amenities and meet friends. But I don't kid myself that this is possible for most people, yet.
I honestly don't see it that way. Car in city center usually lead to horrible horrible traffic, especially in our old European town where the centers are usually full of narrow streets.
It then becomes annoying for everybody: As a driver, you will be stuck in traffic and pollution most of the time. As a pedestrian, you will have to always mind your surrounding to be safe and you will have to smell the horrible car exhaust.
Since our center is mostly car free, it honestly feel more convenient. Sure you have to sacrifice the convenience of being close to your car, but you can be in and out of the center in a matter of minutes, never be stuck in traffic, and being there is much more enjoyable.
Also, my city converted a lot of road into pedestrian way and they added a lot of place to sit down, take a break, ... Before that, you where always stuck in a narrow sidewalk, bumping into other people with cars going full speed less than 1,50 meters next to you... Not really a pleasant experience. Your only hope to catch a break was in the shops themselves, meaning you where trying you damnest to go from shop A to shop B as quickly as possible. It made people overall more aggressive and your experience very bad.
And finally, they added more green space which help prevent flood which started to appear in the last years because we had too many area covered in asphalt.
My biggest point on car free cities is that it is supported fervently by the people who would gain massive amounts of power over others if nobody had a car. If you're dependent on public transport, it can be taken away from you as leverage.
I get what you're saying. And for what it's worth I do like the idea of making city centers more walkable and pedestrian friendly.
But based on some comments in this discussion there are absolutely anti-automobile people here and they are vocal. I just responded to someone calling a car a "murder machine".
Some people have only lived in highly dense areas and can't imagine why you'd need a car in certain cities or regions.
Those seem to be the people who push the car-less idea the most, because it meets their world view, but doesn't work once you step outside the downtown bubble.
But what I think they want are solutions to the parking, traffic, and other issues that stem from city overpopulation and/or planning mismanagement of cities.
As an outsider I agree cities need to rework how they handle cars (idling in traffic for an hour to go 10 miles, parking being hell, etc.) but it's a specific problem to cities (some more so than others)
I definitely agree with that but it's a whole other thing. It's a travesty that we don't have walkable cities and we are all hostage to cars and parking to get anywhere. All us 'New World' countries like the US, Canada, Australia, NZ had our cities emerge in the age of cars so they were never built for humans to begin with. Europe and Asia feel more like they made space for cars but didn't design for them.
The change will be radical but we need mixed use areas where we can live, work, shop and play all together and not commute all over the damn place.
I have no opinion on this phenomenon outside SF, but in the city proper, as a pedestrian, I love it. I know that when I'm walking, I'll rarely have to wait more than 45 seconds or so at nearly any intersection. It's also great when I'm out for a run, as stop-and-go would be crappy for my fitness regimen.
I frankly don't give a damn about car traffic; cities are for people, not cars. And I say this as someone who owns a car and drives it often enough. (Again, outside the city, sure, ok, things are different, and you really need a car to get around. That itself is another city-planning failure, but that's a separate issue.)
Moving to a walkable area is life changing. Yeah, if you just sell your car and continue to live in the same spot, it’s going to make life hard. But if you live in an area that isn’t car dependant, suddenly everything is more convenient and nicer than you thought possible.
I think having everyone out of their cars and on the street walking also does wonders for feelings of safety and community. Isolation in metal boxes is just bad for people.
I agree with most of this. Maybe the problem is with how people write about the issue coupled with the modern social media driven need to edgelord it. I often see this stuff in the form of “fuck cars” type opinions that sound clueless and one sided. Of course the pro-car counter also ends up sounding clueless and one sided.
I’ve spent much of my life in dense cities and currently live in suburb (with an EV). There are things I like and dislike about both settings, and I don’t really want either to disappear. In the US we could definitely use more walkable towns and I totally support zoning reform. I also think some suburbs could be retrofitted into walkable town designs over time and I’d be down with this.
The problem with cars is the huge negative effect it has on city planning and neighborhoods. It is not really about cars vs public transport. It is about cities built for cars vs cities built for people. I live in the Netherlands and have lived many years in a big western style modern city (Melbourne). It is day and night.
Neighborhoods for cars:
* Noise
* Pollution
* Dangerous for all, especially children and cyclists
* Discourages simple outside exercise like walking or jogging
* Forces car ownership. You can't do anything without a car.
* Massive amounts of space are required for roadways, parking etc.
* Sprawl. Everything has to be spread out.
* Anything immediately outside your home is unpleasant.
Neighborhoods for people:
* Quiet
* Less pollution
* Safe. Children can play outside and go to the park or shops by themselves, or visit their friends by foot or bike. (I sent my 7 year old to get a couple things from the supermarket last week.)
* Biking and walking is pleasant
* You don't need to buy a car
* The neighborhood isn't full of ugly car parks.
* neighborhood is compact, making biking and walking much more viable.
It's astounding to me that motornormativity has such a strong hold over people's views. People can get intensely angry if you attempt to improve the environment by restricting car use or limiting on-street parking and it strikes me as a very selfish attitude. However, when people actually encounter low-car cities, they usually find them to be very practical and enjoyable to travel around as public transport isn't mired in congestion.
I often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities. Having lived that life for years I can’t imagine why. A lot of cities that are beautiful and attractive also have room for cars. I would even argue it is a big part of what makes those cities attractive. There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer. In cities that aren’t overbuilt, it makes it so much easier to get things done, see people, and access the outdoors. All that time saved is time to live a richer life.
A good example of a car centric city that is very attractive is Seattle from ten years ago. The city had a strong sense of community because it was composed of intimate neighborhoods mostly with single family zoning rather than mid rise boxy apartment blocks everywhere, ample green space for its population, and roads with little traffic. It is because Seattle was so attractive that people and businesses flocked to it. Now those aspects are going away as density, anti car policies, and other issues are making the overall quality of life worse.
Changing that is the entire goal of the "anti-car" crowd, right? They want city-planers to build neighborhoods that are walkable, accessible by public transport and don't require owning a car. And they want them everywhere, for everyone.
The lack of quiet in the city is almost entirely due to the cars. Less obvious is the lack of community, but car-streets acts as barriers that prevent people from meeting each other. This is really noticeable if your city has a car free day; It will be the day you meet your neighbours for the first time.
I'm very excited by the fact that cities around America are slowly waking up to the idea that providing more spaces for cars instead of people makes living in them so much better.
My city has caught on, and there are a bunch of car free streets and alleys being made in the CBD. They have boutiques and restaurants with outdoor seating, and it changes the dynamic of the area entirely. People are relaxed, not rushing, chatting with eachother without yelling . You get a lot more friendly encounters with strangers. It feels like you've reached some kind of special community area, just for you and the others there.
reply