Car-free cities; the way forward?

[Deleted member 6183]

Cities need to be bulldozed and planned again to have a fully integrated public transport system. Not only that, but it also needs to be affordable and not so disgusting that you risk your health and being when using it.

My city was bulldozed from the air in 1941, rebuilt in the 50s and run into the ground since the 80s.

Cities like Bath do better because there is something interesting to see when you get there, more ordinary places need a new initiative and I think that better vehicle access will work for them.
Some Spanish cities have really cool underground car parks, you have no idea that they are there until you see a ramp a bit like the unused one on Kingsway (Holborn).

Driving cars out of boring city centres is not doing them any favours.

 

[saff]

My city was bulldozed from the air in 1941, rebuilt in the 50s and run into the ground since the 80s.

Cities like Bath do better because there is something interesting to see when you get there, more ordinary places need a new initiative and I think that better vehicle access will work for them.
Some Spanish cities have really cool underground car parks, you have no idea that they are there until you see a ramp a bit like the unused one on Kingsway (Holborn).

Driving cars out of boring city centres is not doing them any favours.

14th November 1941?

 

[Bellow]

This.....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

.....really doesn't help.

 

[Scott_F]

14th November 1941?

The Germans had invaded the USSR by then and had largely given up bombing the UK until the arrival of the V1.

 

[Ted]

The Germans had invaded the USSR by then and had largely given up bombing the UK until the arrival of the V1.

That was the night of the Coventry blitz.

 

[Dippo]

The Coventry Blitz was 1940, not 1941.

Coventry Blitz - Wikipedia

 

[tbourner]

I can see a shift towards people not owning cars and just doing pay per use in automated vehicles before complete bans on cars in large areas of cities. But no doubt it will eventually come.

This. We're closer than people think to level 4 automation inside cities, so you can request an automated electric taxi to take you anywhere, no worries about charging etc. Level 5 full autonomy will be needed before being able to travel in or out obviously but banning driven cars inside cities will be an easy step once everyone is using Transport as a Service.

 

[saff]

The Coventry Blitz was 1940, not 1941.

Coventry Blitz - Wikipedia

Yes indeed, my error.

 

[219]

I wasn’t aware of this, but many of central London’s roads were closed to cars today. It was apparently to raise awareness about the city’s air quality issues. This article talks about how measures are having to be taken in cities across the world, and certainly in my experience in many of them it’s well overdue. As mentioned in the article, there are possibly benefits beyond pollution reduction by banning cars. Is it time to be strong and take the level of action happening in Oslo, or do we worry about upsetting a few people and just let things continue as they are? Can we change our mindset towards the perceived freedom offered by our cars or will we continue to offer excuses?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/london-car-free-day-cities?

Alas , the most polluted street in Europe, Hope Street in Glasgow , is for a large part BUSES AND TAXIS ONLY , and for the rest these same vehicles form a large proportion of the traffic .

 

[219]

I think it is an inevitable step that will taken across the country at some point in the near future.

The current low emission zone in London will spread to other cities as councils are given the power to charge motorists with polluting cars to enter.
Once that has been accepted, it wouldn't surprise me to see a total ban on traffic entering cities, but the question of reliable, affordable public transport must be addressed first.
The High streets are already dying from lack of trade and a total ban will need considerable planning to succeed.

It is a vicious circle : pricing visitors out of cities hurts businesses there ; when they close down there is less reason for them to visit .

Eventually the cities will become ghost towns with no jobs , where no one will be able to afford to live .

 

[219]

I actually agree with the sentiment of your post but I think the situation is too far gone - our towns and cities were (mostly) designed with a horse and cart in mind and at no point has anyone in the last 50 years or so done anything to adapt to our reliance on “the car”, everything has just been a fudge.

Apart from post war New Towns , like East Kilbride or Cumbernauld - designed from the start to separate vehicles from pedestrians and facilitate all

 

[Londonscottish]

Lol yep just seeing who is awake [emoji850]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

The Jam did "Down at the Tube Station at Midnight".

I actually made it home by getting on a tube at 3 AM last month.

Handy.

 

[E53AMG]

This. We're closer than people think to level 4 automation inside cities, so you can request an automated electric taxi to take you anywhere, no worries about charging etc. Level 5 full autonomy will be needed before being able to travel in or out obviously but banning driven cars inside cities will be an easy step once everyone is using Transport as a Service.

Still working out how to ship 600x A4 folders from printers in Yorkshire to an address in the City of London without using a combustion engine?

Lorries, buses and vans are diesel and producing much higher levels of carbon than private petrol vehicles so until they can be replaced it is all pointless.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[kid-jensen]

SL500AMG, from all I've read, Diesel engines (generally) emit far less carbon than the equivalent petrol engine, that's why the government "forced" us into them with taxation. Thanks to Dieselgate, so many of us are stuck with them, and petrol-originated carbon emissions are on the rise as diesel sales are in free-fall.
To be fair, the ML suits a diesel very well, and I couldn't afford to run it, if it was petrol-engined...

Oxford Street is still one of the most polluted areas in the UK, and 90% of the vehicles using it are diesel. Yes, some busses are becoming electric or Hybrid, but it's still an unpleasant place to be, even if you don't go into Sports Direct.

In the mean time, note my signature.....ride a low pollution electric skateboard and save your town!

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Lorries, buses and vans are diesel and producing much higher levels of carbon than private petrol vehicles so until they can be replaced it is all pointless.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Wrong. Cars produce FAR more carbon pollution than all other forms of road transport, simply because there are far more of them.


In towns and cities, of far more concern is the NOx and particulates from Diesel engines. Obviously it’s mostly attributed to busses in places like Oxford Street where cars aren’t allowed, but on shared roads it’s still our cars that are the greatest overall polluters. Emission control on busses and other large vehicles is far more efficient than on cars.

 

[E53AMG]

Wrong. Cars produce FAR more carbon pollution than all other forms of road transport, simply because there are far more of them.

View attachment 89335
In towns and cities, of far more concern is the NOx and particulates from Diesel engines. Obviously it’s mostly attributed to busses in places like Oxford Street where cars aren’t allowed, but on shared roads it’s still our cars that are the greatest overall polluters. Emission control on busses and other large vehicles is far more efficient than on cars.

Wrong. We are talking about banning cars in cities not globally. The carbon pollution from lorries and buses would outstrip passenger cars in cities like London. Also the graph pre- dates restrictions brought in since 2016 and totally ignores other carbon pollution such as farting humans, animals and rodents which outstrip all.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[tbourner]

Cars are worse than buses per passenger as well, the same as business class flyers have a larger carbon footprint than economy flyers. That doesn't help the argument for lorries though!

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Wrong. We are talking about banning cars in cities not globally. The carbon pollution from lorries and buses would outstrip passenger cars in cities like London. Also the graph pre- dates restrictions brought in since 2016 and totally ignores other carbon pollution such as farting humans, animals and rodents which outstrip all.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

You’re right to highlight a concern with farts; it’s estimated that around 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock emissions (burps and farts). Again, you’re correct in saying that we’re talking about cities, so we clearly need to get all the cows and sheep out of London! (Human farts contain relatively negligible quantities of carbon gasses, so you can continue eating your beans without worrying that you’re the cause of global warming.)

On a more serious note, let’s have some facts rather than speculation on the contribution of cities to global warming. Just this year, UN Habitat reported that cities consume 78 per cent of the world’s energy and produce more than 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, they account for less than 2 per cent of the Earth’s surface. UNITED NATIONS UN Climate Change Summit 2019

We can’t deny that transport is a major contributor to greenhouse emissions and the area where least progress has been made in recent years.


Quite frankly it’s ridiculously meaningless to say that carbon emissions from busses outstrips that from passenger cars in cities like London. A far more sensible comparison would be between the carbon emissions per passenger mile. City busses would always win hands down.

It’s not only carbon emissions we have to consider in cities when contemplating the need for reducing traffic. Our health is being severely compromised by traffic emissions such as NOx in cities. Cutting private transport in cities not only reduces the contribution of pollution to ill-health, it encourages the health benefits of walking and cycling.

The cities where the chances of dying from transport pollution are highest are all in… Europe | Transport & Environment

 

[E53AMG]

Cars are worse than buses per passenger as well, the same as business class flyers have a larger carbon footprint than economy flyers. That doesn't help the argument for lorries though!

Well shoot me dead, I just took a chauffeur drive to Heathrow (not risking any damage to my V8) followed by a 2x Business Class flights to Bali.

In my defence I only upgraded the kids to Business for the 3 hour flight Singapore to Bali leg so that is my carbon reducing contribution.

They were both with me on the same jet producing the same carbon so I am struggling to understand how my carbon footprint is larger?

If the argument is you could squeeze more economy seats in the Business cabin that only makes sense if the plane is full. Fact is though the Business seats make the flight financially viable for the airline.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[markjay]

Business Class is a must for airlines... because it exists. Completion drives the deal.

Let's say there was a world-wide directive that in the interest of reducing carbon footprint planes are not allowed to have less than x seats (varying by plane model).

There would be no issue then... obviously tickets will cost more, because Economy will no longer by subsidised by Business and First (assuming this is currently the case).