People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one(wired.com)
wired.com
People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one
https://www.wired.com/story/car-free-cities-opposition/
334 comments
I'd quibble with the title. Based on my experience in London, most middle-class/white collar workers love car-free living. Most blue-collar workers don't like it. They continue not liking it once it becomes reality. (Although maybe they realize that it's not as bad as they feared).
I think this is basically another example of political polarization, combined with employment patterns. White collar workers broadly speaking place a higher value on their time and mostly belong to "tribes" that value their health and environment. Removing cars is great for that as bikes give control over journey times (and in most cases in e.g. London reduce them) while positively impacting the other.
Blue collar workers may not be able to do their jobs with just a messenger bag containing a laptop and airpods. Also, their political identity has been dragged further towards the radical-individualism end of the spectrum where collective action on e.g. environment is hard, and trust for bossy health authorities telling them to exercise more is low.
The slightly strange side effect is that you end up with an item which is way cheaper (a bike at e.g. school dropoff vs a car) that becomes a signifier of social status. I am sure there are loads of examples of this phenomenon but none spring immediately to mind!
I think this is basically another example of political polarization, combined with employment patterns. White collar workers broadly speaking place a higher value on their time and mostly belong to "tribes" that value their health and environment. Removing cars is great for that as bikes give control over journey times (and in most cases in e.g. London reduce them) while positively impacting the other.
Blue collar workers may not be able to do their jobs with just a messenger bag containing a laptop and airpods. Also, their political identity has been dragged further towards the radical-individualism end of the spectrum where collective action on e.g. environment is hard, and trust for bossy health authorities telling them to exercise more is low.
The slightly strange side effect is that you end up with an item which is way cheaper (a bike at e.g. school dropoff vs a car) that becomes a signifier of social status. I am sure there are loads of examples of this phenomenon but none spring immediately to mind!
These days I'm finding myself doing half my trips on a bicycle and half in a car. In my experience one of the biggest barriers to micromobility in America is cultural. Motorists can be aggressive and complacent because their vehicles are big and have airbags, and so long as they aren't impaired they won't be held accountable for harm they cause with their vehicles. Cyclists and pedestrians can act in a way that is entitled and reckless because they know they probably won't be held accountable for their behavior either. Except some of them sometimes forget that the laws of physics are less flexible.
A few years ago I was driving my son somewhere, and a cyclist blew through a red light and slammed into the side of my car. Fortunately the only injuries were the ones that the cyclist inflicted on himself through his reckless disregard for the law. Judging how much damage he did to my car, if my son and I had been on our e-bikes instead then I think that guy could have easily killed my kid.
Knowing that there are too many cyclists and motorists who behave with complete disregard for the law makes me feel like I really have no choice but to put my child in a big steel cage with airbags and crumple zones if we're going to travel anywhere on American roads. And before you ask, this was not in a big city, so public transportation was not a viable option for us that day.
My personal experience seeing peoples' general behavior and attitudes on roads in both Japan and Amsterdam makes me wish we could find a way to adopt some of that culture.
A few years ago I was driving my son somewhere, and a cyclist blew through a red light and slammed into the side of my car. Fortunately the only injuries were the ones that the cyclist inflicted on himself through his reckless disregard for the law. Judging how much damage he did to my car, if my son and I had been on our e-bikes instead then I think that guy could have easily killed my kid.
Knowing that there are too many cyclists and motorists who behave with complete disregard for the law makes me feel like I really have no choice but to put my child in a big steel cage with airbags and crumple zones if we're going to travel anywhere on American roads. And before you ask, this was not in a big city, so public transportation was not a viable option for us that day.
My personal experience seeing peoples' general behavior and attitudes on roads in both Japan and Amsterdam makes me wish we could find a way to adopt some of that culture.
I would have expected the article to give some clear pool/metric/statistics about "people hate the idea ... ". There are indeed loud people and big interest groups that oppose car free cities, but I am not sure about "people" in general.
Sure, you need means of transport and to be able to live, and you can't change things over night, but if you would ask people "would you prefer to have a supermarket 5 minutes away or one 20 kilometers away" I doubt anybody would say "no I want only things far to be forced to use a car".
Sure, you need means of transport and to be able to live, and you can't change things over night, but if you would ask people "would you prefer to have a supermarket 5 minutes away or one 20 kilometers away" I doubt anybody would say "no I want only things far to be forced to use a car".
As someone who has worked in London for many years, the difference is amazing. Biking in the city is now enjoyable, and the air quality is (subjectively, even without the data) dramatically better.
There was an incredible resistance to the recently introduced ULEZ (Ultra Low Emissions Zone) expansion, but I'm incredibly grateful for the sake of my children, if nothing else, that it has been pushed through.
There was an incredible resistance to the recently introduced ULEZ (Ultra Low Emissions Zone) expansion, but I'm incredibly grateful for the sake of my children, if nothing else, that it has been pushed through.
So, living in one of those cities (AMS) I have a few takes. I'm not ranting, just expressing my frustration:
1. Cars exists because they are more comfortable. I don't care that biking should better, it's not when it rains sideways, it's cold and windy. Biking sucks. I would pay top money to not be in a bike, not be outside getting drenched, and usually do ubering everywhere to the dismay of Dutch people,
2. Cities designed around biking are uber tied to public transport. I'm a lefty, I think that's great, but it's not, because the first time there are cuts to public service you find yourself living in the middle of nowhere and can only bike, because cars are too expensive to own. This happened in the Netherlands with NS slashing intercity trips, and increasing prices. I had colleagues now that now to live several hours per day in a packed commuter train. I can't see how that's better.
3. Any type of DIY activity becomes a nightmare. Want to rent move a couch? Good luck! Back home, you could load the thing on a nice Volvo and be happy.
4. Electric bikes are effectively not policed because it's the new thing we need to incentivize, and it becomes immediately super dangerous. I know people that had serious injuries because of crashes. Cars are inherently safer, especially modern SUV like volvos or tesla,
5. Accessibility becomes a nightmare, especially if you are in a wheelchair, your commute times are going to skyrocket,
All this "bikes are amazing" just reeks of some bad degrowth ideology. There is a duality between cars are bad and hydrocarbons are bad. Except they are literally the engine of growth, and for some reasons we decided that we should phase out hydrocarbons and replace them with some silly not reliable energy alternative (solar, wind). I can't see how this ends in a different way than how it went in Europe with our energy policy.
Cities are meant to grow and drive the economy, not to be Disneyland parks. If I want to bike I can go to Italy on a seaside town, I don't need to bike 356 days a year.
1. Cars exists because they are more comfortable. I don't care that biking should better, it's not when it rains sideways, it's cold and windy. Biking sucks. I would pay top money to not be in a bike, not be outside getting drenched, and usually do ubering everywhere to the dismay of Dutch people,
2. Cities designed around biking are uber tied to public transport. I'm a lefty, I think that's great, but it's not, because the first time there are cuts to public service you find yourself living in the middle of nowhere and can only bike, because cars are too expensive to own. This happened in the Netherlands with NS slashing intercity trips, and increasing prices. I had colleagues now that now to live several hours per day in a packed commuter train. I can't see how that's better.
3. Any type of DIY activity becomes a nightmare. Want to rent move a couch? Good luck! Back home, you could load the thing on a nice Volvo and be happy.
4. Electric bikes are effectively not policed because it's the new thing we need to incentivize, and it becomes immediately super dangerous. I know people that had serious injuries because of crashes. Cars are inherently safer, especially modern SUV like volvos or tesla,
5. Accessibility becomes a nightmare, especially if you are in a wheelchair, your commute times are going to skyrocket,
All this "bikes are amazing" just reeks of some bad degrowth ideology. There is a duality between cars are bad and hydrocarbons are bad. Except they are literally the engine of growth, and for some reasons we decided that we should phase out hydrocarbons and replace them with some silly not reliable energy alternative (solar, wind). I can't see how this ends in a different way than how it went in Europe with our energy policy.
Cities are meant to grow and drive the economy, not to be Disneyland parks. If I want to bike I can go to Italy on a seaside town, I don't need to bike 356 days a year.
Not even sure how you'd start off hating the idea. Less noise, less pollution, shorter commute, cheaper infrastructure, more green, more walking, improved health...I mean...just off the top of my head I'm thinking of tons of advantages. I can't think of a single disadvantage. The only reason I need a car is because the city / neighbourhood is configured around the expectation that everyone has a car.
There's probably also a bit of selection bias going on. People who prefer car usage will be less likely to go live in places where car ownership is difficult. The longer a city is "car-free" the more of that bias will accumulate.
There's really not much in the article to suggest that the same people are first against and later in favour. It shouldn't be surprising that some people prefer to live in car-free places, but that's all you can conclude without doing polling the same people before and after a change to car-freeness.
There's really not much in the article to suggest that the same people are first against and later in favour. It shouldn't be surprising that some people prefer to live in car-free places, but that's all you can conclude without doing polling the same people before and after a change to car-freeness.
The open paragraph regarding London is very much 'of now'. Air pollution in London in the 2000s has been the lowest it has been in over a century. The Great Smog of 1952 killed perhaps 10,000 people over a very short period. And the article doesn't make clear the ONS-estimated 36,000 a year deaths is across the entire UK not just London.
It just feels like the modern journalism's trend for hyperbole and over exaggeration. That's not to say that pollution shouldn't be reduced as much as possible. It's not so bad that you don't see tens of thousands of runners and cyclists in and around London every single day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
It just feels like the modern journalism's trend for hyperbole and over exaggeration. That's not to say that pollution shouldn't be reduced as much as possible. It's not so bad that you don't see tens of thousands of runners and cyclists in and around London every single day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
Car free cities are great but you have to have a lot of problems solved for them to work . You need high density, lots of public services from libraries to pools all these need to be close. Public transport has to be safe so you have to actually enforce laws and arrest vagrants. Car free needs a lot of things to go right where car full cities can be pretty disfunctional
Having a car free city center sounds like a good idea. It's not a car free city though (that sounds horrible, not to mention impossible). A city needs less dense areas and at some point outside the city center density will be low enough to a) not have public transit at the required frequency and b) be home for the type of places you need a car for (Lumberyard, car wash, ...).
The title is a bit hyperbolic. It's mostly about reducing the number of cars in the urban core, improving public transit, and making the infrastructure more pedestrian and bike-friendly. Which, while easier said than done, is a lot more achievable than being literally car-free--especially in more than a fairly small area.
People's aversion to change, even when the change is for something that is objectively better in every way, is really really annoying.
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 live in a nice little city in the Netherlands, Leiden. I am from the U.K.
I cannot believe people would want to live any other way than with accessible bike paths and walkable streets. It is mad.
I cannot believe people would want to live any other way than with accessible bike paths and walkable streets. It is mad.
Plus car travel is dead time since you’re forced to pay attention to the road at least somewhat.
I’d rather have a longer journey that is hands free
I’d rather have a longer journey that is hands free
AMA, I lived in a car-free city for 10 years.
It's not free of cars (there's plenty of them there), but public transit is good and you can live your life without owning a car. The main requirements: a) you need to be comfortable with living in a small apartment, b) you shouldn't have any interests outside of the city c) stick "one day - one errand" rule. YMMV, but I felt essentially locked inside a big city and hated it.
It's not free of cars (there's plenty of them there), but public transit is good and you can live your life without owning a car. The main requirements: a) you need to be comfortable with living in a small apartment, b) you shouldn't have any interests outside of the city c) stick "one day - one errand" rule. YMMV, but I felt essentially locked inside a big city and hated it.
It is amazing how bad we are at walkable infrastructure in the US. There are housing developments <.5 miles from a grocery store with no sidewalks in between. Why not at least have a path for bikes?
I dont want a car free city, buti desperately want a car de-emphasized city where for most trips the car is an option but its not the beat option vs walking/biking/transit with this idelly achieved by making those other methods of trnsit dramatically better not by making cars dramatically worse. Kind of like what they have done in the netherlands
The funny thing that's been happening in the UK about Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) is that there's been lots of press about them being unpopular, driven to a large extent by the current Conservative government who seem to be trying to play to their base. And the threats against people who support them mentioned in the article are real. But rather embarassingly for the government, when they did some proper research it turned out that a large majority of people want them, and they don't have nearly as many negative side effects as claimed once they've bedded in: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/low-traffic-...
As an American who moved to Berlin 15 years ago, I love not needing a car. We like to visit Paris, Amsterdam, London, Florence, and more cities multiple times a year and we never get a car. Between public transportation and my bicycle, I can get just about anywhere I need to and usually faster than in a car.
If I need a car for some unusual errand, which is rare like once a year, I use an app to cheaply rent a car of the needed size for a few hours.
Recently had to go to the US for a short trip and I had to rent a car. It felt insane how much time I had to spend in my car just to visit people who all live in the same metro area, due to all the sprawl.
If I need a car for some unusual errand, which is rare like once a year, I use an app to cheaply rent a car of the needed size for a few hours.
Recently had to go to the US for a short trip and I had to rent a car. It felt insane how much time I had to spend in my car just to visit people who all live in the same metro area, due to all the sprawl.
When I was in university, I worked on a study that collected people’s preferences for different types of developments. When you asked them what they wanted, they basically said easy driving and parking. When you showed pictures of different types of development (sprawl, transit oriented development, etc), they overwhelmingly picked the car-free option. People don’t know what they want.
Yup, everyone's gotta drive to the supermarket in their 9999999 tonne landtank SUV now.
It's so bad in London now, traffic is just becoming all SUVs. I'd love for them to be banned, but consumers want SUVs...so there'll never be a ban. There's not even that much space inside an SUV either!!
Back in NZ we actually used utes and other large vehicles for what they're actually meant for.
It's so bad in London now, traffic is just becoming all SUVs. I'd love for them to be banned, but consumers want SUVs...so there'll never be a ban. There's not even that much space inside an SUV either!!
Back in NZ we actually used utes and other large vehicles for what they're actually meant for.
I lived without a car for a decade (London / other towns in the UK) and then I moved to a place in EU where I need a car but things are pretty close by. I can get a bus but they're not frequent enough to replace cars.
Overall the better quality of life (food, weather, access to seaside, real estate affordability, lower cost of living in general) weighs WAY more than having to drive a car or not.
It's a nice to have but not "life-changing". The important bit is to have the stores you need nearby so you don't have to drive 30m to get a coffee and 1h to go shopping. That's what wrong with the USA. Most of Europe has towns like this: you still need cars, but everything is close by.
Pros:
- I can go wherever I want - I can carry a lot more groceries / stuff - I don't stress about timetables anymore - No need to rent a car to do trivial work
Cons:
- Need to pay for car, insurance, parking - Higher risk of accidents - Risk of fines (speed limits are ridiculous, same for alchol tolerance)
Overall the better quality of life (food, weather, access to seaside, real estate affordability, lower cost of living in general) weighs WAY more than having to drive a car or not.
It's a nice to have but not "life-changing". The important bit is to have the stores you need nearby so you don't have to drive 30m to get a coffee and 1h to go shopping. That's what wrong with the USA. Most of Europe has towns like this: you still need cars, but everything is close by.
Pros:
- I can go wherever I want - I can carry a lot more groceries / stuff - I don't stress about timetables anymore - No need to rent a car to do trivial work
Cons:
- Need to pay for car, insurance, parking - Higher risk of accidents - Risk of fines (speed limits are ridiculous, same for alchol tolerance)
Italy strikes the right balance by having car-free zones for pedestrian areas. Other cities could really use this approach. In Times Square in New York, you have a major road running right through the main pedestrian area, leading to a bit of conflict. And it's usually Ubers and other vehicles who could've easily gone a different way.
Anecdotally, in Houston at least, it does seem true that people come back from travel abroad and talk about walking around, using public transit, and if renting a car, only for drives through the countryside or a particular tour. And then complain about having to resume a tedious commute. It’s almost a cliche, like study abroad students coming home with new affectations.
Or, if they went to certain other places, complaining about how terrifying the traffic was, like “you wouldn’t believe these roundabouts, there were no signs, mopeds everywhere, it was lawless! traffic worse than here!”
To some maybe the connection is more obvious than to others, but as they say, you can lead the horse to public transportation but you can’t make it vote for people who support allocating resources for it.
Or, if they went to certain other places, complaining about how terrifying the traffic was, like “you wouldn’t believe these roundabouts, there were no signs, mopeds everywhere, it was lawless! traffic worse than here!”
To some maybe the connection is more obvious than to others, but as they say, you can lead the horse to public transportation but you can’t make it vote for people who support allocating resources for it.
What're you talking about? It's awesome driving 25 miles each way to and from work in this city with more highway miles per capita than any other city in the country.
sits down at desk; starts breathing exercises to calm the anxiety from the Mad Max-esque driving on the interstates
sits down at desk; starts breathing exercises to calm the anxiety from the Mad Max-esque driving on the interstates
While this definitely does not compare this experience, it did show this young person the utility; in the early 70s when Disney World opened, we used the trams in Fort Wilderness to get around for a week; shopping and back and forth to the camp store, going to the activities in the day, evening and at night. Just running around. Did this all with and without parents, and I think they were possibly electric at that time as they stopped right outside your campsite at the corner and must have been very quiet, or maybe diesel, just don't recall. We simply learned the schedule, hopped on and then off, and simply had a great time. Like many things Disney, I thought I was looking at the future and was pleased.
> In the US, between 50 and 60 percent of the downtowns of many cities are dedicated to parking alone.
This is the part I find the craziest about American cities. You are using some of the most valuable parcels of real estate in your country as parking lots!
Part of the reason seems to be that you guys have too much land anyway, so those parcels aren't that valuable. Because if they really were prime real estate, somebody would have discovered that it's more profitable to move the parking underground and build (apartments|condos|shops|offices) above.
If you insist on wasting land on above-ground parking lots, at least put some solar panels or something similarly useful on top.
This is the part I find the craziest about American cities. You are using some of the most valuable parcels of real estate in your country as parking lots!
Part of the reason seems to be that you guys have too much land anyway, so those parcels aren't that valuable. Because if they really were prime real estate, somebody would have discovered that it's more profitable to move the parking underground and build (apartments|condos|shops|offices) above.
If you insist on wasting land on above-ground parking lots, at least put some solar panels or something similarly useful on top.
I live in the Netherlands, a country usually lauded for it's bicycles and public transport and what not.
And let me tell you: We still drive cars. All the time.
Even in Amsterdam, our biggest city, 4/10 families still owns their personal car. In the Netherlands as a whole it's 9.5/10 or so.
It's about THE MIX of options.