nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cities around the world that are reducing car access

MJohnston

I thought this would be an interesting thread to track the efforts of various cities to reduce the amount of car access, and thereby improve either the public realm, transport infrastructure, or just the local environment.

Today Paris won a court case which will allow them to proceed with banning cars from the banks of the Seine:

https://twitter.com/Anne_Hidalgo/status/1055442830892654594

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-paris-cars-river-seine.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Interesting video on German cities banning Diesels and some dubious air quality testing. Surely it would just be easier to phase out the sales of Diesels, rather than penalising owners of fairly recent models.
I have no issues with them banning the "old smokies" from the streets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gguwJRrzzF8

Zebra3

SeanW wrote: »

I fundamentally reject the idea that nuclear energy is "unproven" in any way. It has been an unqualified success anywhere that it has been done properly. There is more than half a century of hard evidence to prove this.

You talk about the Polar Vortex in the United States? Guess who kept everyone alive, warm and empowered :pac: during the Polar Vortex?
No less than Exelon Corp. which operates a whole load of nuclear reactors.

That's before we look at Europe, where most of the countries that have small carbon footprints per kw/h of power generated/used also have lots and lots of nuclear. Cases in point, France and Sweden. Meanwhile, Germany was still commissioning coal fired power plants as of 2014 and dramatically out-pollutes not just France and Sweden but other nations as well, all in a bid to support their "Energiewende" which is just an expensive way of killing birds and bats, as well as wasting enormous amounts of rare earth metals and other materials.

Nuclear unproven? I don't think so.

If nuclear power is so great, why do countries build their plants in isolated areas close to other countries?

Sam Russell

SeanW wrote: »

I fundamentally reject the idea that nuclear energy is "unproven" in any way. It has been an unqualified success anywhere that it has been done properly. There is more than half a century of hard evidence to prove this.

You talk about the Polar Vortex in the United States? Guess who kept everyone alive, warm and empowered :pac: during the Polar Vortex?
No less than Exelon Corp. which operates a whole load of nuclear reactors.

That's before we look at Europe, where most of the countries that have small carbon footprints per kw/h of power generated/used also have lots and lots of nuclear. Cases in point, France and Sweden. Meanwhile, Germany was still commissioning coal fired power plants as of 2014 and dramatically out-pollutes not just France and Sweden but other nations as well, all in a bid to support their "Energiewende" which is just an expensive way of killing birds and bats, as well as wasting enormous amounts of rare earth metals and other materials.

Nuclear unproven? I don't think so.

Well, let us look at Chernobyl - That is a disaster that has cost the envionment more than any gain got from nuclear energy. Now Three Mile Island is another case.

No real enviromental study has answered the question of radioactive waste. Of course the USA made artillery shells ot of depleated uranium and used them in Iraq. I suppose that is one way of getting rid of it.

So there is no doubt that elctricity can be generated by nclear power plants, but the cost of those pants, and so the cost of electricity per unit is heavily sbsidised, and the externalities like waste treament are left for future generations.

So, a lot of aspects remain unproven. Safety being a major one.

cgcsb

Zebra3 wrote: »

If nuclear power is so great, why do countries build their plants in isolated areas close to other countries?

Energy production, coal, nuclear gas or even wind generally is found in areas of low land value. Such is economics in general. Land closer to cities has more value as other uses. Not sure what you mean by 'close to other countries' seems difficult to avoid in Europe. I the UK's case they are mostly coastal due to the abundance of sea water as a coolant.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, let us look at Chernobyl - That is a disaster that has cost the envionment more than any gain got from nuclear energy. Now Three Mile Island is another case.

No real enviromental study has answered the question of radioactive waste. Of course the USA made artillery shells ot of depleated uranium and used them in Iraq. I suppose that is one way of getting rid of it.

So there is no doubt that elctricity can be generated by nclear power plants, but the cost of those pants, and so the cost of electricity per unit is heavily sbsidised, and the externalities like waste treament are left for future generations.

So, a lot of aspects remain unproven. Safety being a major one.

Anything built/designed before 1990 you're talking ancient history in terms of safety. Fossil fuels have a far worse safety record, despite being in development a much longer time.

Modern Nuclear is by far a safer and cleaner option than fossil fuels, by any measure. It's costly of course as one would expect with cleaner and safer technologies.

Currently we're shifting towards an electric car fleet, a massive swathe of data centres and an electric train network. Moneypoint is reaching the end of it's life and we'll be out of gas by 2030 and be depending on Russia and countries along it's pipelines for supply. We can wait for grid storage batteries to develop, but that's a gamble. It's decision time.

Zebra3

cgcsb wrote: »

Energy production, coal, nuclear gas or even wind generally is found in areas of low land value. Such is economics in general. Land closer to cities has more value as other uses. Not sure what you mean by 'close to other countries' seems difficult to avoid in Europe. I the UK's case they are mostly coastal due to the abundance of sea water as a coolant.

I mean "close to other countries" as in Britain and Sweden building them in areas that could potentially effect Ireland and Denmark while minimising the risk to their own territory.

MJohnston

cgcsb wrote: »

Anything built/designed before 1990 you're talking ancient history in terms of safety. Fossil fuels have a far worse safety record, despite being in development a much longer time.

Modern Nuclear is by far a safer and cleaner option than fossil fuels, by any measure. It's costly of course as one would expect with cleaner and safer technologies.

Yeah, but arguably fossil fuel stations are always going to have a worse safety record, because the impact from one of those failing is going to be several orders of magnitude less severe than with nuclear. A gas power station can have a massive failure and nothing would be lost other than the station itself (and of course any lives working within it). Cleanup could begin immediately, wouldn't be hugely risky to do, and the land could be reused right away when it's done.

Now, personally I believe we (as a planet) will need to use nuclear power to save us from runaway climate change, but I just cannot ever imagine the circumstances under which one would be built in Ireland. Potentially if offshore nuclear plants ever became a reality?

Anyway, this is all rather off topic!

cgcsb

Zebra3 wrote: »

I mean "close to other countries" as in Britain and Sweden building them in areas that could potentially effect Ireland and Denmark while minimising the risk to their own territory.

Being close to other countries is incidental, the plants tend to be coastal for the sake of coolant and in areas of low land value and where they are accessible to the high voltage national grid. Both the UK and Sweden have nuclear power plants very close to their major cities. Sweden has one about half way between Malmo and Gottenburg. There is also one close to Sweden's main airport just a few km north of Stockholm.

All of the UK power plants are close to Major UK cities.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Being close to other countries is incidental, the plants tend to be coastal for the sake of coolant and in areas of low land value and where they are accessible to the high voltage national grid. Both the UK and Sweden have nuclear power plants very close to their major cities. Sweden has one about half way between Malmo and Gottenburg. There is also one close to Sweden's main airport just a few km north of Stockholm.

All of the UK power plants are close to Major UK cities.

Have you looked at a map of Cernobyl?

Sellafield is not near any major city. Dungerness is not near any city, and so on.

If they are so safe, why did the British not build ne in Hyde Park? Answer - They are not safe. The Japanes did build hem in urban areas and we saw how that worked out.

However safe nuclear is, a failure is so catastrophic, it is not worth it for us.

Dats me

Sam Russell wrote: »

Have you looked at a map of Cernobyl?

Sellafield is not near any major city. Dungerness is not near any city, and so on.

If they are so safe, why did the British not build ne in Hyde Park? Answer - They are not safe. The Japanes did build hem in urban areas and we saw how that worked out.

However safe nuclear is, a failure is so catastrophic, it is not worth it for us.

I dunno, that sounds a lot like someone arguing against flying in airplanes because when it goes wrong it goes very badly wrong, even though statistically it's very safe.

Look at where Moneypoint is, hardly in Phoenix Park itself and that's supposedly "safe" coal.

I'm not sure whether Nuclear is the right option, but I'm certainly more worried about CO2 emissions than I am about nuclear waste.

Cgsb I'm sure isn't denying that Chernobyl was bad, but having a super reliable, zero GHG emission baseload is very, very useful and having a Moneypoint is flirting with extinction

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Have you looked at a map of Cernobyl?

Sellafield is not near any major city. Dungerness is not near any city, and so on.

If they are so safe, why did the British not build ne in Hyde Park? Answer - They are not safe. The Japanes did build hem in urban areas and we saw how that worked out.

However safe nuclear is, a failure is so catastrophic, it is not worth it for us.

Again land values and energy production. Almost every active nuclear station in the UK is near a large city.

SeanW

Zebra3 wrote:

If nuclear power is so great, why do countries build their plants in isolated areas close to other countries?

Firstly if you want to talk about "isolated areas" you have to start with windmills - to get any real energy out of them you have to carpet-bomb your country with the things, and they really do have to be built in out-of-the-way places, like every single hill and mountain top that you can put one on that would otherwise be unspoilt. Don't believe me? Drive from Cavan to Derry, they've basically carpet bombed every mountain top in Northern Ireland with those vile monstrosities. That also requires enormous amounts of new grid infrastructure in places where it would not otherwise be required to reach these super-remote windmills.

As for nukes, France has them all throughout its country. Like, everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

BTW France started building its nuclear program seriously in the 1970s, likely as a response to the oil crisis of '74, when no-one gave two figs about global warming. By accident, they solved their CO2 emissions problem from electricity because they now emit about 50-100g CO2 per kilowatt hour which is among the best in Europe (Sweden, Switzerland also have extensive nuclear programmes so they too emit very few CO2 emissions per kwh.

If you wanted to write a book called "how to stop climate change without really trying" you could literally just put in a picture of France in the late 20th century.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, let us look at Chernobyl - That is a disaster that has cost the envionment more than any gain got from nuclear energy. Now Three Mile Island is another case.

Well of course Chernobyl was a disaster - it was run by Bolsheviks. What would you expect? Comparing a Bolshevik nuclear programme to a Western one is like comparing food supplies in the Soviet Union, where you had to queue for weeks to buy a loaf of bread, to the West, where all our supermarkets are (usually) well stocked and there are usually plenty of them near most people. Apples and Oranges. Three Mile Island was not great, but it did not have serious consequences beyond the plant property line. Fukushima was another example of nuclear not done properly (note the original caveat "anywhere that it has been done properly". There were dozens of nuclear plants along the same Japanese Pacific coast that were subject to the same earthquake, the same land drop and the same tsunami as Fukshima-Daiichi but did not go into meltdown, because those plants were built properly with properly sited emergency facilities and sufficiently high sea-walls.

No real enviromental study has answered the question of radioactive waste. Of course the USA made artillery shells ot of depleated uranium and used them in Iraq. I suppose that is one way of getting rid of it.

Huh? They use D.U. as a material for its physical strength in munitions, they still have loads of of nuclear waste to manage.

So there is no doubt that elctricity can be generated by nclear power plants, but the cost of those pants, and so the cost of electricity per unit is heavily sbsidised, and the externalities like waste treament are left for future generations.

It can be done at reasonable cost (the French did it in the '70s and '80s in their country, Sweden and Switzerland did something similar), energy generation is largely free of CO2 emissions, many countries have used nuclear energy for generations without issue and the waste, while not optimal, is manageable. Oh and, wildlife like birds and bats are actually doing much better in the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl whereas in the "woke" West, environmentalists and their windmills are killing more bats than White Nose Syndrome, which admittedly is quite an achievement, even if a terrifying and depressing one.

There is no need to threaten wildlife like windmills do, you do not have to carpet bomb your country with these massive, expensive, ugly, bird chomping bat killing monstrosities, those gargantuan monuments to absurdity, ideological blindness and intellectual laziness.

If you're serious about stopping anthropogenic climate change (not to mention nice things like not driving bats to extinction because of windmill strikes and barotrauma), nuclear energy has to be part of the solution. Facts don't lie.

Podge_irl

Sam Russell wrote: »

If they are so safe, why did the British not build ne in Hyde Park? Answer - They are not safe. The Japanes did build hem in urban areas and we saw how that worked out.

However safe nuclear is, a failure is so catastrophic, it is not worth it for us.

Answer - because why would they build anything in Hyde Park. It's a park.

Fukishima was a minor, almost completely insignificant blip compared to the massive devastation cause by the actual earthquake and tsunami. Two events that somehow bizarrely get forgotten.

cgcsb

There was a remembrance ceremony for the 50 killed in the oil tanker disaster (in a long line of systemic and catastrophic failures) in Cork a few weeks ago. Anti-nuclear activists continue to point to the 0 deaths freak accident at Fukushima. Ironically this accident only a few years after some English hippies insisted the state build Moneypoint coal plant instead of the Carnsore point nuclear station. Moneypoint now still accounting for a large chunk of our GHG emissions.

MJohnston

"Global cities reducing car access" - not about nuclear power plants....

CatInABox

Oslo has started down the path of making the city less car friendly, including removing parking spaces along streets, replacing them with cycle tracks, benches, and planters. Drivers have to park in garages on the outskirts and make their way in.

So far, it's considered a massive success, with more pedestrians and businesses reporting more customers.

See here.

Great, though I think this is also an important part of what they are doing:

The city is adding new trams and metro lines and more frequent departures, and lowering the cost of tickets.

We seem to be struggling to add anything but a few more buses and ticket prices are going up all the time.

Also while I totally agree with removing parking spaces, the problem our city councils face is that they raise so much of their review from paid parking. So government would need to increase it's financing of local authorities to make up for such a lose.

cgcsb

bk wrote: »

Great, though I think this is also an important part of what they are doing:

We seem to be struggling to add anything but a few more buses and ticket prices are going up all the time.

Also while I totally agree with removing parking spaces, the problem our city councils face is that they raise so much of their review from paid parking. So government would need to increase it's financing of local authorities to make up for such a lose.

What do councils need money for? they no longer collect waste, they rarely/never clean/maintain the streets. They refuse to build new social housing, the projects they work on (e.g. liffey cycle route) just get mismanaged so badly that the government steps in and carries out the work directly. You're basically paying them to sit in there and issue decrees of support for Palestine.

cgcsb wrote: »

What do councils need money for? they no longer collect waste, they rarely/never clean/maintain the streets. They refuse to build new social housing, the projects they work on (e.g. liffey cycle route) just get mismanaged so badly that the government steps in and carries out the work directly. You're basically paying them to sit in there and issue decrees of support for Palestine.

Planning, licensing, parking enforcement, parks maintenance, street cleaning, street lighting, social housing, etc.

I agree with you that most councillors are idiots. But much of our day to day lives is quietly looked after and kept running by the public servants in these organisations.

[Deleted User]

cgcsb wrote: »

What do councils need money for? they no longer collect waste, they rarely/never clean/maintain the streets. They refuse to build new social housing, the projects they work on (e.g. liffey cycle route) just get mismanaged so badly that the government steps in and carries out the work directly. You're basically paying them to sit in there and issue decrees of support for Palestine.

There's a bit more to it than that. DLRCoCo made an effort to make their budget understandable - see pages 5-8 of this publication.

https://www.dlrcoco.ie/sites/default/files/atoms/files/dlrtimes_winter_2018_screen.pdf

CatInABox

Finally, some good news, and some good news reporting as well. The Times have an article on the Fitzwilliam Cycle Route, saying that it's received wide public support, with only a few submissions in opposition to it.

A plan to build Dublin’s first parking-protected cycle lane has received extensive public support.

A report on the public consultation over plans for the Fitzwilliam cycle route found that 97 per cent of more than 1,760 submissions were in favour.

A petition submitted by the South Georgian Core Residents Association (SGCRA) opposed the plans and was signed by 83 individuals.

Only one of 13 local businesses to respond raised objections. Patrick White & Co, a solicitor’s firm in Fitzwilliam Square said that the proposal was “totally unnecessary” because there was no user demand for it.

I've only included a snippet, because you can register for free to see it, and I have to admit, I've been impressed by the quality of articles that the Ireland edition of The Times have been putting out, so even a little support like that will help them.

celtcia

Irish Times have a record of not acting in the public interest...
Maybe they taking small steps...

CatInABox

celtcia wrote: »

Irish Times have a record of not acting in the public interest...
Maybe they taking small steps...

It's the Ireland edition of the UK Times, so not the Irish Times.

cgcsb

CatInABox wrote: »

Finally, some good news, and some good news reporting as well. The Times have an article on the Fitzwilliam Cycle Route, saying that it's received wide public support, with only a few submissions in opposition to it.

I've only included a snippet, because you can register for free to see it, and I have to admit, I've been impressed by the quality of articles that the Ireland edition of The Times have been putting out, so even a little support like that will help them.

Not just the times but most papers I notice lately are getting bashed in their comments sections on the articles they have attacking bus connects and metro. Perhaps that'll inspire change. The one they had about the poor unfortunate Dunville residents was universally slated.

Riar_

bk wrote: »

Planning, licensing, parking enforcement, parks maintenance, street cleaning, street lighting, social housing, etc.

I agree with you that most councillors are idiots. But much of our day to day lives is quietly looked after and kept running by the public servants in these organisations.

Parking enforcement is privatized and a lot of parks in Dublin are run of the OPW. Due to development levies councils act as a drag on development.

MJohnston

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1097139930474528769

[Deleted User]

Madrid retail sales increase after car ban

https://twitter.com/StreetsblogUSA/status/1105150248345845760

SeanW

I've seen "car free" areas work. The partial pedestrianisation of Broadway on Times Square in New York is an unqualified success. The Oslo thing may well work too.

But it bears repeating that all of these places tend to have extensive and high quality public transport options as part of the set up.

Forget apples and oranges, comparing Dublin with Oslo is like comparing apples with vacuum cleaners. They bear no relationship to each other. At all.

For example, Times Square in New York sits atop an enormous public transport interchange. It is possible to reach large portions of NYC with one subway ride (no changes) from Times Square and the junction is one subway stop (though if the weather is OK you could walk) to Penn Station and Grand Central, where one can connect to Long Island via the Long Island Railroad or further via Amtrak, Westchester County and Southeastern Connecticut via Metro North Railroad at Grand Central. So it makes sense that a place with such good, well used public transport and heavy pedestrian traffic would pedestranise.

The same is true of Oslo, which has the most dense Metro per person of any city anywhere on Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo#Transport
The following is worth particular emphasis.

Oslo has Norway's most extensive public transport system, managed by Ruter. This includes the six-line Oslo Metro, the world's most extensive metro per resident, the six-line Oslo Tramway and the eight-line Oslo Commuter Rail. The tramway operates within the areas close to the city centre, while the metro, which runs underground through the city centre, operates to suburbs further away

A 6 line Metro? Six tram lines - strictly limited to the central area and immediate region? Eight heavy rail commuter lines?

Does this sound anything like anything that might ever exist anywhere in Ireland in the next 100 years? If not, then how in the Sam Hill can Oslo or its policies be compared to anything in an Irish context? Am I the only one here that sees a serious problem with this?

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Madrid retail sales increase after car ban

https://twitter.com/StreetsblogUSA/status/1105150248345845760

Madrid's public transport system is even more extensive than that of Oslo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid#Transport
Madrid has 13!! Metro lines, 10 regional commuter lines and 4 "Light Metro" lines (basically like the Luas).

What exactly are you comparing Madrid to?

MJohnston

SeanW wrote: »

What exactly are you comparing Madrid to?

It doesn't have to be compared to anything, this thread is just about the general topic of cities that are banning cars!