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

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 wrote: »

I'm dropping out of this conversation. You as a group are misinformed, can't be argued with and I've better things to do.

Ah yes, classic. Do come back when you're truly informed!

4dB is a difference of ~1.3x; this is not a huge difference. it's been nice discussing this with you.

MJohnston wrote: »

You're talking about the difference between something like 68dB and 71dB as being sufficient to mitigate noise pollution, so I'm not sure you've truly understood the topic at hand tbh

If you don't understand the difference between 68db and 71dB then I'd advise you not to go car shopping as interior sound in both will be the exact same to you.

i thought you'd had enough?

Deleted User wrote: »

If you don't understand the difference between 68db and 71dB then I'd advise you not to go car shopping as interior sound in both will be the exact same to you.

I do understand the difference, and I know that you also understand that a reduction of 3dB in tyre noise rating will not help with urban noise pollution. That's what it boils down to — EVs will not help with this. You're just choosing to pretend not to understand this for ideological reasons.

MJohnston wrote: »

Ah yes, classic. Do come back when you're truly informed!

I've found a moment. I'm informed. You've obviously got an agenda.
The fact that you try to deny EU mandated measured noise emmissions from tyres aren't a real thing displays how low you are willing to drag an argument in to the realms of absurdity to further your agenda which is the removal of cars from urban areas.
Silent motors, cars so silent that they need to be made artifically louder, cars stuffed to the gills with active and passive safety equipment which allows them to co-exist safely with other road users are all ignored by you because they don't fit your world view.
As an example my car brings up a warning when I am merging from one specific street on to another at an especially acute angle because it thinks I'm not paying attention to traffic due to the observed angle of my head when I'm attempting to merge safely.
The facts are that no matter how safe or environmentally friendly my car will be you will still want to agitate to ban it from city centre locations.

This isn't a commuting forum, this is a forum for those who wish to ban all four-wheeled private means of transport from city and inter-city environments.
The forum has been captured by vested interests and all dissent will be strenuously repelled.

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that you try to deny EU mandated measured noise emmissions from tyres aren't a real thing

Nope, I didn't. Show me where I did?

Silent motors, cars so silent that they need to be made artifically louder, cars stuffed to the gills with active and passive safety equipment which allows them to co-exist safely with other road users are all ignored by you because they don't fit your world view.

A lie. I'm ignoring nothing, I've said they're not good enough.

As an example my car brings up a warning when I am merging from one specific street on to another at an especially acute angle because it thinks I'm not paying attention to traffic due to the observed angle of my head when I'm attempting to merge safely.

It would be another lie to claim that this is intrinsic to electric cars, or indeed a standard feature on even a majority of new cars. And yet another lie to claim that it's infallible.

The facts are that no matter how safe or environmentally friendly my car will be you will still want to agitate to ban it from city centre locations.

Yeah, the problem with this argument is that you've drastically simplified everything down to "no matter how safe or environmentally friendly" — to name just one additional complicating factor, you've also forgotten the amount of human space that is reserved and wasted for cars.

The only solution that truly works for the greatest amount of people is to get cars out of city centres, improve public transport, and rededicate public space away from being roads and towards being usable.

MJohnston wrote: »

The only solution that truly works for the greatest amount of people is to get cars out of city centres, improve public transport, and rededicate public space away from being roads and towards being usable.

You've reached your decision. You'll follow Dogma as proscribed no matter what.

MJohnston wrote: »

It would be another lie to claim that this is intrinsic to electric cars, or indeed a standard feature on even a majority of new cars. And yet another lie to claim that it's infallible.

https://carbuzz.com/news/car-safety-features-will-save-your-life-but-hurt-your-wallet
I could show you reports of statistical research to prove that the latest cars are measurably and considerably safer to their occupants and other road users but it would be falling on deaf ears. Your world view doesn't allow it.

Deleted User wrote: »

https://carbuzz.com/news/car-safety-features-will-save-your-life-but-hurt-your-wallet
I could show you reports of statistical research to prove that the latest cars are measurably and considerably safer to their occupants and other road users but it would be falling on deaf ears. Your world view doesn't allow it.

Yes — because an improvement in car safety does not equal safety.

A reduction in noise levels does not equal a satisfactory level of noise pollution.

And none of these things address the biggest problem — cars take up way too much space.

What you seem to want to ignore is that cars are starting from some of the worst possible baselines — their safety record is absolutely atrocious, and their level of noise pollution is damaging.

You can't just vaguely wave at a slight reduction in these things and say "look, all solved!", because it's not enough. Do you know what are very safe, with low noise and air pollution levels, and uses city space extremely efficiently? Trams and trains.

The only dogma here is one that keeps people desperately clinging to private car commutes even when all the evidence shows that they're destructive to people and to cities.

MJohnston wrote: »

Yes — because an improvement in car safety does not equal safety.

A reduction in noise levels does not equal a satisfactory level of noise pollution.

And none of these things address the biggest problem — cars take up way too much space.

What you seem to want to ignore is that cars are starting from some of the worst possible baselines — their safety record is absolutely atrocious, and their level of noise pollution is damaging.

You can't just vaguely wave at a slight reduction in these things and say "look, all solved!", because it's not enough. Do you know what are very safe, with low noise and air pollution levels, and uses city space extremely efficiently? Trams and trains.

The only dogma here is one that keeps people desperately clinging to private car commutes even when all the evidence shows that they're destructive to people and to cities.

Who appointed you as Arbiter of what is safe and quiet and what isn't sufficiently safe or did you just step up and decide to do it Pro Bono?
You don't even know how large or small my EV is. You aren't proposing electric quadricycles. You just want to Ban, Ban, Ban without even exploring options.
You are completely unreasonable and not well equipped to decide upon what is a practical and practicable solution to urban mobility.

I don't know when an EV is passing through the valley I live in which has qualities similar to an amphitheatre. I definitely know when an electric train is passing through thanks to the noise pollution.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know when an EV is passing through the valley I live in which has qualities similar to an amphitheatre. I definitely know when an electric train is passing through thanks to the noise pollution.

What's the average occupancy of the EV and the train passing through your valley?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who appointed you as Arbiter of what is safe and quiet and what isn't sufficiently safe or did you just step up and decide to do it Pro Bono?
You don't even know how large or small my EV is. You aren't proposing electric quadricycles. You just want to Ban, Ban, Ban without even exploring options.
You are completely unreasonable and not well equipped to decide upon what is a practical and practicable solution to urban mobility.

I’m not engaging with you anymore, as it’s clear you’ve decided to bury your head in the sand and only resort to meaningless personal attacks.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's the average occupancy of the EV and the train passing through your valley?

Commuter trains are rarely more than 50% full. It is a bit of a leading question considering neither train nor roads are anywhere near capacity.

Deleted User wrote: »

Commuter trains are rarely more than 50% full. It is a bit of a leading question considering neither train nor roads are anywhere near capacity.

I wasn't asking about the percentage capacity occupancy. I was asking about the absolute numbers in the typical EV vs the absolute numbers in the typical electric train. That would help to put in context any comparison of the relative noise levels.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I wasn't asking about the percentage capacity occupancy. I was asking about the absolute numbers in the typical EV vs the absolute numbers in the typical electric train. That would help to put in context any comparison of the relative noise levels.

You want to compare iron wheels scratching on rails to rubber tyres on Asphalt?

well, somebody did.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know when an EV is passing through the valley I live in which has qualities similar to an amphitheatre. I definitely know when an electric train is passing through thanks to the noise pollution.

If this is meant to be some kind of zinger then it is lost on me. I see an attempt being made by serveral people on this thread to tar EVs as having an intolerably negative effect on the urban environment which simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The stock responses as to why cars should be banned from Cities have been negated to a large extent once those cars become electric and the arguements in favour of inferior public transport diminished.
If Citroen's efforts with the Ami quadricycle and Renault's EZ-1 gain traction then hopefully urban personal mobility will take a step forward before the fanatics lobbying for poor or non-existant public transport close all roads to personal mobility solutions.

Deleted User wrote: »

If this is meant to be some kind of zinger then it is lost on me. I see an attempt being made by serveral people on this thread to tar EVs as having an intolerably negative effect on the urban environment which simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The stock responses as to why cars should be banned from Cities have been negated to a large extent once those cars become electric and the arguements in favour of inferior public transport diminished.
If Citroen's efforts with the Ami quadricycle and Renault's EZ-1 gain traction then hopefully urban personal mobility will take a step forward before the fanatics lobbying for poor or non-existant public transport close all roads to personal mobility solutions.

Is one of the stock responses that they are an inefficient use of the limited space in cities? Most of the reasons I would ban/reduce car access to cities are down to the less tangible societal impacts of designing our towns for cars, the space they take up, both parking wise and on the road, and the much, MUCH higher risk of death or injury being hit by a car than by a person on a bike.

Pollution factors are hugely reduced by EV use, but the rest are not.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Is one of the stock responses that they are an inefficient use of the limited space in cities? Most of the reasons I would ban/reduce car access to cities are down to the less tangible societal impacts of designing our towns for cars, the space they take up, both parking wise and on the road, and the much, MUCH higher risk of death or injury being hit by a car than by a person on a bike.

Pollution factors are hugely reduced by EV use, but the rest are not.

ADAS features are reducing accident rates in which cars are involved(but not necessarily responsible for) considerably and those features are only becoming more sophisticated as the regulations gets stepped up.
The City I live in was designed around carts, coaches and carraiges. The horses and their carraiges are gone. That is the built environment you are dealing with across Europe but the car is being blamed. In the city I live in you can drive to the city, deposit your car in underground car parks within 100 to 200 metres of your destination and complete the journey on foot. That doesn't happen in Dublin which is the only point of reference some other contributors to the thread have.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

ADAS features are reducing accident rates in which cars are involved(but not necessarily responsible for) considerably and those features are only becoming more sophisticated as the regulations gets stepped up.
The City I live in was designed around carts, coaches and carraiges. The horses and their carraiges are gone. That is the built environment you are dealing with across Europe but the car is being blamed. In the city I live in you can drive to the city, deposit your car in underground car parks within 100 to 200 metres of your destination and complete the journey on foot. That doesn't happen in Dublin which is the only point of reference some other contributors to the thread have.

What point are you trying to make?

Is it that all potential destinations for everyone should have parking within 100-200 meters no matter the location?

The point being that some cities are more pragmatic, wish to make cities accessible to those who wish to travel in them in their own personal transport and don't resort to knee-jerk reactions like prohibition of private vehicles.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point being that some cities are more pragmatic, wish to make cities accessible to those who wish to travel in them in their own personal transport and don't resort to knee-jerk reactions like prohibition of private vehicles.

So what do you propose once capacity is reached on the roads by facilitating such access?

Deleted User wrote: »

So what do you propose once capacity is reached on the roads by facilitating such access?

Capacity isn't reached because in addition to easing access with private transportation other transport solutions are avaiable while not being at the expense of access such as a well run public bike schemes, privately owned bikes, blanket saturation of e-scooters, public buses sharing the same road space as cars, trams sharing some of the road space with cars and an integrated transport system which means that many people in edge case scenarios don't need to consider acquiring a car...all done without banning cars in the city and much higher population densities than seen in most of D1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,etc..

Deleted User wrote: »

The point being that some cities are more pragmatic, wish to make cities accessible to those who wish to travel in them in their own personal transport and don't resort to knee-jerk reactions like prohibition of private vehicles.

I 'wish to travel in my own personal transport', its called my bicycle and its great at being space efficient, minimally polluting and makes cities very accessible. Why should I have to fight tooth and nail for access to cities in a safe manner?

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I 'wish to travel in my own personal transport', its called my bicycle and its great at being space efficient, minimally polluting and makes cities very accessible. Why should I have to fight tooth and nail for access to cities in a safe manner?

I wouldn't bother engaging, the poster will (without irony or self-awareness) just call you dogmatic soon.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I 'wish to travel in my own personal transport', its called my bicycle and its great at being space efficient, minimally polluting and makes cities very accessible. Why should I have to fight tooth and nail for access to cities in a safe manner?

work away if it isn't to the exclusion of those who are old or disabled or must transport young children in their own transportation which is appropriate to their needs or where a visit to the city is only an element of their complete journey and find a car the most appropriate means of achieving their goal.

Deleted User wrote: »

public buses sharing the same road space as cars

This is a failure in every city in the world except maybe Pyongyang .

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

work away if it isn't to the exclusion of those who are old or disabled or must transport young children in their own transportation which is appropriate to their needs or where a visit to the city is only an element of their complete journey and find a car the most appropriate means of achieving their goal.

How did old people get around before cars? None of my Grandparents had cars and now people go on like old people should be be able to park and drive to anywhere they want.
How old are we talking? My parents still walk and cycle and drive and they're 71 and 67.
I don't think we should be allowing cars access to everywhere in case a pensioner wants to drive there, feck them.