Cities around the world that are reducing car access

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121223471#Comment_121223471

Think it’s more entitlement than laziness.

Citizen Six

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121223765#Comment_121223765

Millennials 😥

New York introducing a congestion charge which will be used to fund investment and expansion of public transport (subway, buses and railroads)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjG_8zFVFAw

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121223843#Comment_121223843

The benefit of a traffic warden is they issue fines there and then and, if they use modern technology, could quite quickly cover a large area.

Clamping is expensive, and should be used as a backup to the traffic warden (basically on call). They could check unpaid fines as well as Motor Tax, insurance, NCT, etc. Problem with them is that they are hated by motorists (particularly those that dislike parking legally) and some of these can be aggressive and threatening - even violent. It is not a job I would take for any money.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121225916#Comment_121225916

Issue them with a taser. Make the fine a % of their income, issue a penalty point to their license

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121226861#Comment_121226861

Yea, well .....

They sort it at the moment by having two big burly individuals in a big van and have them clamp vehicles. The clampers cost more than the fines, while I suspect the traffic warden would cost less, and would cover much more ground.

I would imagine there are areas of the city that would be a no-go area for them. They would not be popular.

magicbastarder

as good a place as any to put this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/20/ireland-green-party-calls-measures-reduce-sale-suvs

Flinty997

I know why they exist. But something about SUVs doesn't sit right with me.

I think they make a lot more sense in the states. Even in the cities where there is just more space for everything.

They have replaced saloons, hatchbacks and MPVs. Even if you didn't want one it might be the only thing available.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121263540#Comment_121263540

Ford confirmed that they are moving to SUV type vehicles and won't really be making sedans any more.

The one and only reason they exist is because the manufacturers make more money from them than they do from sedans.

PopePalpatine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121263540#Comment_121263540

Nothing makes sense to me about driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango, Ford Explorer or some other 2,000kg+ blob on smooth tarmac roads between a suburban home, the local strip mall and job in an office when you factor in all that extra steel, aluminium and plastic that's needed compared to the likes of a Golf or Corolla.

EDIT: I jumped the gun, there's one thing that makes sense about it, fear that you're going to get T-boned by some dumbass in another SUV/truck.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121263829#Comment_121263829

When they go up country at the weekend is a lot more rugged country than we have. Same with weather. If they get snow its serious stuff, not a light dusting we see. And it's not a couple of days either.

When they park this in town they don't have tiny spaces crammed into a postage stamp area like we do. We seem to build no room for expansion for anything. Tunnels, roads, parking, hospitals.

Sam Russell

A replacement of CO2 based Motor Tax that relies on weight to some extent - perhaps mostly - might change attitudes towards the attraction of SUVs.

They provide much easier access for some people, and can take larger loads (for those rare times such a load needs moving), but fuel consumption is higher than a smaller, lighter vehicle. The fuel - be it electricity or petrol/diesel) - has to be paid for, either by the motorist or the environment.

Tax is always a way of directing peoples choices.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121263996#Comment_121263996

I think that's coming too drag more tax income from vehicles.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121264054#Comment_121264054

Well, they would find it very hard to apply excise tax on electricity for EVs, so they have to replace that source with another type of tax.

If they make 'heavy' an unattractive attribute, then vehicles will tend towards 'lighter' to save tax.

Incentivising 'Pay-as-you-drive' services would reduce the multi-car households to tend to go towards one-car households with the backup of an account with a local PAYD service to cover extra transport needs.

Things evolve as the world changes.

Flinty997

We are heavily down the route of over engineered solutions.

Make most cars heavier, then you need more engineering to deal with that weight in a collision.

magicbastarder

i understand another reason cars are getting higher is to accomodate the batteries in EVs - but how much space do the batteries and electric motor(s) in an EV take up compared to the engine, gearbox, and fuel tank in an ICE car?

cgcsb

Work to start on Aston Quay earlier next year.

https://irishcycle.com/2023/10/17/work-on-south-quays-cycle-path-from-docklands-to-start-in-q1-2024-says-council/

Will be interesting to see how this integrates with the plan to ban cars from Aston Quay by 2025. If only we could see some proposed layouts.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121264390#Comment_121264390

SUVs and crossovers were already tall before EVs. Engine and gearbox and gubbins is smaller. Battery bigger. Well depending on what size battery you buy. I don't thinks it's a huge difference. ID3 Vs Golf?

KrisW1001

The difference in necessary height between EV and ICE is trivial.. a couple of centimetres at most. EVs have batteries, but don't have transmission tunnels or exhaust pipes.

Height and footprint has increased to hide higher costs. Back in the early 2010s, manufacturers discounted their mainstrean "car" lines heavily just to keep their production volumes high enough to keep the lights on. The problem with this was that it trained customers to believe that cars should be cheap, and when it came time to update those models the makers found that couldn't recoup the cost of platform development if they concentrated on traditional body styles. It costs less than €1000 more to make a typical "SUV" car than a regular car of the same footprint, but because "car" prices were so depressed, the "SUV" can nowbe sold for up to €5000 more.

That's the reason why.

magicbastarder

yeah, they were already tall but this now gives them an engineering excuse to justify that, from what i understand?

i've put my opinion on record on boards multiple times that it's excess height in vehicles i object to, more so than length, width or weight.

KrisW1001

Footprint and running mass are the big problems. Height isn't really an issue unless it increases mass..

magicbastarder

mass is a problem for efficiency, yes. i'm looking at it (pun unintended) from a visibility issue.

Flinty997

Typical SUV has the air efficiency of a brick.

KrisW1001

Typical "SUVs" have normal Cd values - Hyundai Tucson is around 0.33; Alfa Romeo's Stelvio SUV and Giulia car have identical Cd values at 0.32. There are outliers (e.g., Jeep Wranger due to the high windscreen angle), but most things perform as well as a typical car, with increased drag being solely down to the larger frontal area.

But if this is a discussion about urban areas, then you need to consider that below about 50km/h, aerodynamics contributes very little to vehicle efficiency. Most energy is used overcoming mechanical drag and inertia. It's only at faster speeds that inertia starts to work in your favour and aerodynamics becomes a limiting factor.

Longer vehicles have less overall aerodynamic drag than short ones, which favours some SUV designs.

Flinty997

It's still another thing that a SUV is bad at..

It's death of a thousand paper cuts with SUVs. It's the cumulative effect of being bad in almost every aspect. And we've made it the most common car type.

https://www.carwow.co.uk/best/most-aerodynamic-cars#gref

https://www.ucc.ie/en/eri/news/why-the-reign-of-suvs-on-irish-roads-should-end.html#:~:text=But%20instead%2C%20SUV%20sales%20are,far%20more%20than%20electric%20vehicles.

Even when I do most of my driving in and around the city. A decent amount of it % of it is on orbital routes with over 50kph speed limits.

KrisW1001

The "flatlining" of CO2 emissions since 2015 is due to a change in the measurement system (WLTP vs NEDC) combined with a tightening of the auditing of testing laboratories to avoid cheating in the wake of the VW Diesel scandal. Basically, much of the decline in emissions in the decade up to 2015 was a lie, and we're now seeing the true, slower, rate of decline.

That UCC article does something that really bugs me: they complain about "SUV" sales without defining what they mean by "SUV".

To take an example: A B-SUV like a Jeep Renegade offers the same interior volume as a D-segment car like a VW Passsat, at the same kerbweight (actually the Renegade is lighter), but smaller footprint. From an engineering point of view, both of these are cars (unibody construction, FWD), but the lighter, more efficient one is labelled as bad while the heavier one is considered good... B and C-segment SUVs are actually beneficial for providing greater utility at the same footprint as larger cars.

Where I agree is in D-segment and higher (Tucson upward): these vehicles are oversized simply to hide their cost of production, and they are inferior to cars. 4WD vehicles are less effiicent again, and unless you live somewhere where the roads often fail, they are a waste of resources.

I'm not defending SUVs here, by the way, just trying to keep an interesting debate grounded in facts. People shout "SUV" at cars that are dimensionally not that different to historical car designs (A modern VW T-Roc actually has a lower ride-height than a VW1100 "Beetle"). What we have now is a trend toward tall, high-riding cars, something we last saw in the 1950s.

For the record, I would fully support a weight x footprint tax on new cars to replace Motor Tax - the escalating size of vehicles makes existing road and parking infrastructure less efficient and poses a danger to vulnerable road users in urban areas, but I have no objection to any particular body-style. (I do have a major objection to Body-on-Frame construction being used for light-duty passenger cars, but that's an American, rather than European phenomenon). Taxation based on running weight would force manufacturers to produce more efficient designs, rather than hiding their inefficiency in bloated, heavy bodywork.

The farce of parents driving their children to school in 2 tonne toy-trucks because they're so scared of those kids being struck by some other parent's 2 tonne toy truck needs to end.

Flinty997

I'm not sure most people need a passat for carrying one and two people around the city. I don't think you're going to use a 1950s Beetle either.

I take the point that blanket "labels" like SUV are not always that useful.

Sam Russell

I used to drive a Passat and now drive a Tiguan. Although not designed by the same team, the engine gearbox and much of the running gear appears the same to me. I look on the Tiguan as a Passat that is shorter but a bit taller - not much different, but easier to drive from a higher position.

Not sure of weight difference, but fuel consumption is higher once the speed is above 100 km/h.

magicbastarder

i had the occasion recently to drive a t-cross a couple of times, and was surprised how poor the boot capacity was. with four small suitcases in it, it was full.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121268258#Comment_121268258

I look on the Tiguan as a Passat that is shorter but a bit taller - not much different, but easier to drive from a higher position.

The increase in height of vehicles is a problem for other drivers when they are in traditional sedans which sit lower as you can't see past the vehicle in front.

However, as someone who travels to work by bike (leaving my sedan at home), I find that the taller vehicles make it easier to hide me from other drivers which has a negative impact on my safety.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121268300#Comment_121268300

Actually, I have owned a number of two seater sports cars - currently an MX5, and the lower seating position of the little sports car is definitely a serious problem, particularly with HGVs, and some of those drivers frighten me.

Box vans are very much harder to deal with though.

Flinty997

I have no problem in my monster truck

magicbastarder

that last point is the one that is key for me - one example is i used to cycle down newtownpark avenue and had to weave side to side in lane behind SUVs - because (as happened) a motorist pulling out of a side road ahead might not see me behind the SUV and assume there was no-one behind. likewise, i was less likely to see that motorist pulling out as the SUV would be blocking my field of view.

another example would be walking through a car park; 30 years ago, anyone of average height would see over 95% or more of the vehicles parked, making it much easier to see hazards. and like the example above, a motorist cruising for a spot would be much more likely to see pedestrians in the car park.

Citizen Six

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121268258#Comment_121268258

I always thought they were more like a slightly bigger golf, rather than a Passat.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121270112#Comment_121270112

Well, the Passat was different to the Golf with a NS engine rather than the EW engine of the Golf, but the later Passat went EW like the Golf. So the Passat became a big Golf. The Tiguan is closer to the Passat, weight, width, etc.

Citizen Six

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121270198#Comment_121270198

Yeah, but Tiguan and Golf are hatchbacks, rather than a booted car like the Passat. That's how I viewed them. Passat was always seen as an old mans car, compared to the other two, as well.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121270222#Comment_121270222

Well, my Passat was a hatch back (Estate) and the Golf also came as a saloon called the Jetta, also available as an estate. The earliest Passat was a hatchback - back in the seventies.

The Tiguan is also available in a stretched version - the Allspace.

Anyway, there is a Motors forum full of experts on cars - a better place to carry this on.

magicbastarder

Well, my Passat was a hatch back (Estate)

interestingly, i had what appears to be a non-standard definition of hatchback in my head. it just means the boot lid pivots from the roof of the car rather than from underneath the rear windscreen.

for example, i had thought the hatchback in the standard octavia and estate in the octavia estate were mutually incompatible terms.

Citizen Six

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121270255#Comment_121270255

The estate Passat is the only one I ever liked the look of. And a Jetta isn't a Golf, even though they are mostly identical.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121270390#Comment_121270390

Wait until you see the latest Skoda Superb, which can open as just a boot, or a full hatchback at the top of the windscreen.

Flinty997

An Estate (Station Wagon) is generally not referred to as Hatchback.

Doesn't really matter that the car is based on. They can make a big car small inside or a small car big inside. For example the Touran MPV is based on the Golf, but has more interior space than a Passat but is shorter. The point is we are moving to larger and heavier vehicles which are heavier and larger than need to be.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we leave the discussion on cars to the Motor forum, but restrict the discussion to unbridled hatred of SUVs and Range Rovers.

There is no doubt that the move to SUVs and the like of heavy, tall, wide, and unsuitable vehicles proves the need for cities to reduce access for cars (or personal motor vehicles) in favour of PT and active travel.

timmyntc

Weight isnt an issue, its height.

Currently manufacturers arent penalised for excessive height, so the trend is to make cars slightly taller (crossovers), so that drivers can benefit from increased visibility. But as soon as most cars become the same height, that advantage is lost. And the solution? Make cars even taller.

Its a race to the bottom (or top). If its not stopped soon it will end up with most personal cars having same height profile as vans.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121223843#Comment_121223843

DCC don't have wardens, they outsourced to DSPS some years back and dropped their wardens. DSPS did clamping and towing only up to recently, but they did bring in a ticketing/fine service during Covid. I've seen a few ticketed vehicles, but I haven't seen any actual reports on how this new angle has gone.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121223471#Comment_121223471

It's not just laziness, it's a definite, intentional policy of prioritising the convenience of other motorists over the safety of pedestrians. They couldn't possibly contemplate causing other drivers to have to slow down or turn a wheel, but they've no problem in blocking pedestrians.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121225916#Comment_121225916

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121226861#Comment_121226861

Penalty point(s) are indeed the solution here. Illegal parking shouldn't be a privilege of wealthy people who can afford fines.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121270830#Comment_121270830

Weight is always an issue. The more weight, the more energy require to push and stop something. Also to protect against it, crashing into things. Hard to escape physics. There should be an incentive to buying and using smaller light vehicles, and using them less.

Often there isn't. Hence an old small car that you do low mileage in, has often very high static costs. Insurance, Tax, etc. There would little advantage in owning one of these super light micro cars.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121270955#Comment_121270955

Weight is already penalised though - safety standards take vehicles momentum into account (not enough wrt pedestrians but) and also more weight requires more energy to move, and energy costs money.

Height poses significant risks to other road users and pedestrians, but currently has no penalty or disincentive

Flinty997

I don't see any penalty for having a large SUV.

Sam Russell

To have any effect on the preference for SUVs, the Gov needs to show clear cost disadvantage for heavy, tall, or large, vehicles by penalising them through Motor Tax, VRT, and perhaps toll charges. EVs need to pay a new category of Motor Tax to make up the loss of CO2 based tax.

After Stockholm and Paris, Milan is the latest city to propose an outright ban on cars in its city center in an effort to reduce dangerous emission levels

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/10/23/one-of-europes-most-polluted-cities-wants-to-ban-cars-from-its-centre

Thelonious Monk

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=711032951054142&set=pcb.711033481054089

This looks amazing for Balbriggan. Every single post is moaning about losing some parking spaces. Imagine not wanting this for somewhere like Balbriggan which is really needs some TLC, just because you might have to walk a bit sometimes. I despair.