Why can't american cities ban cars?

Seat belts were around for a long time before people started to wear them.
They werern't used by motorists until laws were passed requiring them and
the police enforced the law. In the same way people have known for years
that bicycles can solve or at least help with a lot of serious problems like
spreading obesity, pollution, hostility and isolation. While bicycles still
have the right to use roads, they've been all but forced off the roads by
poor design and indifferent law enforcement. Your average citizen, from what
I've seen, doesn't even know that bicycles are vehicles or that they have a
right to be in the road.

Since global warming and the above mentioned problems are becoming more
obvious, why can't cities work to make cycling a more desireable option?
They could make driving an undesireable option or ban them at least on
certain roads.

On Sep 23, 2:42 pm, "Greens" wrote:
Seat belts were around for a long time before people started to wear them.
They werern't used by motorists until laws were passed requiring them and
the police enforced the law. In the same way people have known for years
that bicycles can solve or at least help with a lot of serious problems like
spreading obesity, pollution, hostility and isolation. While bicycles still
have the right to use roads, they've been all but forced off the roads by
poor design and indifferent law enforcement. Your average citizen, from what
I've seen, doesn't even know that bicycles are vehicles or that they have a
right to be in the road.

Since global warming and the above mentioned problems are becoming more
obvious, why can't cities work to make cycling a more desireable option?
They could make driving an undesireable option or ban them at least on
certain roads.

Why can't they ban cars? Because it would be political suicide to try.
Probably literal suicide. They would get death threats. I don't wan t
my car banned in town. I want the option to drive or ride.

On Sep 23, 3:42 pm, "Greens" wrote:
Seat belts were around for a long time before people started to wear them.
They werern't used by motorists until laws were passed requiring them and
the police enforced the law. In the same way people have known for years
that bicycles can solve or at least help with a lot of serious problems like
spreading obesity, pollution, hostility and isolation. While bicycles still
have the right to use roads, they've been all but forced off the roads by
poor design and indifferent law enforcement. Your average citizen, from what
I've seen, doesn't even know that bicycles are vehicles or that they have a
right to be in the road.

Since global warming and the above mentioned problems are becoming more
obvious, why can't cities work to make cycling a more desireable option?
They could make driving an undesireable option or ban them at least on
certain roads.

Freedom of choice is a good thing. The worse thing you could do to
solve any problem is get the government involved.
Scarce fuel and things 'may' change..but there will be a lot more
problems to deal with..like possible anarchy.
Cars are gonna be around in some form or another probably forever.
Will they be powered by different sources of energy? Of course but the
US, nor Europe nor Asia is going to become a predominantly bicycle
driven society anytime soon.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" wrote in
message oups.com...
On Sep 23, 3:42 pm, "Greens" wrote:
Seat belts were around for a long time before people started to wear
them.
They werern't used by motorists until laws were passed requiring them and
the police enforced the law. In the same way people have known for years
that bicycles can solve or at least help with a lot of serious problems
like
spreading obesity, pollution, hostility and isolation. While bicycles
still
have the right to use roads, they've been all but forced off the roads by
poor design and indifferent law enforcement. Your average citizen, from
what
I've seen, doesn't even know that bicycles are vehicles or that they have
a
right to be in the road.

Since global warming and the above mentioned problems are becoming more
obvious, why can't cities work to make cycling a more desireable option?
They could make driving an undesireable option or ban them at least on
certain roads.

Freedom of choice is a good thing. The worse thing you could do to
solve any problem is get the government involved.
Scarce fuel and things 'may' change..but there will be a lot more
problems to deal with..like possible anarchy.
Cars are gonna be around in some form or another probably forever.
Will they be powered by different sources of energy? Of course but the
US, nor Europe nor Asia is going to become a predominantly bicycle
driven society anytime soon.



Did you guys read anything but the title?
In the last few lines I said, "They could make driving an undesireable
option or ban them at least on certain roads."

Greens wrote:
Seat belts were around for a long time before people started to wear them.
They werern't used by motorists until laws were passed requiring them and
the police enforced the law. In the same way people have known for years
that bicycles can solve or at least help with a lot of serious problems like
spreading obesity, pollution, hostility and isolation. While bicycles still
have the right to use roads, they've been all but forced off the roads by
poor design and indifferent law enforcement. Your average citizen, from what
I've seen, doesn't even know that bicycles are vehicles or that they have a
right to be in the road.

Since global warming and the above mentioned problems are becoming more
obvious, why can't cities work to make cycling a more desireable option?
They could make driving an undesireable option or ban them at least on
certain roads.


cT = 1.0

Hank Wirtz wrote:

Greens wrote:

Since global warming and the above mentioned problems are becoming more
obvious, why can't cities work to make cycling a more desireable option?
They could make driving an undesireable option or ban them at least on
certain roads.

Why can't they ban cars? Because it would be political suicide to try.
Probably literal suicide. They would get death threats. I don't wan t
my car banned in town. I want the option to drive or ride.

There are lots of car-free areas, including entire city centers. Most
such areas that previously had car access have benefited economically
from the removal of cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carfree_places

Chalo

Greens wrote:
Since global warming and the above mentioned problems are becoming more
obvious, why can't cities work to make cycling a more desireable option?
They could make driving an undesireable option or ban them at least on
certain roads.

Hank Wirtz wrote:
Why can't they ban cars? Because it would be political suicide to try.
Probably literal suicide. They would get death threats. I don't wan t
my car banned in town. I want the option to drive or ride.

Chalo wrote:
There are lots of car-free areas, including entire city centers. Most
such areas that previously had car access have benefited economically
from the removal of cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carfree_places

That's true but some did not. State Street in Chicago, for example, was
a debacle.

Also the change in behavior patterns can be extreme, with radical shifts
in use, viable business types etc.

In our neighborhood we're among the last businesses doing any
sales/service of hard goods* as the national chains have blossomed to
sell beer, burgers & tchotchkes to tourists. Not that that isn't viable.
And the property tax take is up (chains can pay much more). But it sure
is different with no steel supplier, no more 4 auto parts stores, no big
industrial supply house, no full hardware store, 2 welding supply houses
gone, etc. All were within walking distance, now outside the city.

Playing 'monopoly' with a city is not for sissies! There are inherently
both winners and losers. You are not wrong but the stakes are huge and
mistakes cost.
(*without the net we would have to move)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:47:02 -0000, Chalo
wrote:

Hank Wirtz wrote:

Greens wrote:

Since global warming and the above mentioned problems are becoming more
obvious, why can't cities work to make cycling a more desireable option?
They could make driving an undesireable option or ban them at least on
certain roads.

Why can't they ban cars? Because it would be political suicide to try.
Probably literal suicide. They would get death threats. I don't wan t
my car banned in town. I want the option to drive or ride.

There are lots of car-free areas, including entire city centers. Most
such areas that previously had car access have benefited economically
from the removal of cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carfree_places

Chalo

Dear Chalo,

Most of the U.S. listings there seem to be either universities,
tourist islands and resorts with golf carts and high-paying guests, or
else unroofed makeshift strip malls, with the shops lining either side
of a street getting their goods through the back doors, which open
onto alleys or parallel streets on the back of the buildings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...#United_States

The Madison, Wisconsin, entry for State Street at the end of the U.S.
section sounds typical, except perhaps for being more candid about the
number of cars in the "car-free" 6-block stretch of State Street:

"6 block car free retail street connecting the university and the
capitol. Traditional street & sidewalk layout; the street is used by
buses, bicycles, police cars, taxicabs, and numerous delivery (motor)
vehicles; pedestrians and the occasional delivery vehicle (parked) on
the sidewalks."

I don't see anything on the Wiki page about economic benefits of
car-free zones. Is there one near you in Texas that illustrates what
you have in mind?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sep 23, 11:42 pm, "Greens" wrote:
Seat belts were around for a long time before people started to wear them.
They werern't used by motorists until laws were passed requiring them and
the police enforced the law. In the same way people have known for years
that bicycles can solve or at least help with a lot of serious problems like
spreading obesity, pollution, hostility and isolation. While bicycles still
have the right to use roads, they've been all but forced off the roads by
poor design and indifferent law enforcement. Your average citizen, from what
I've seen, doesn't even know that bicycles are vehicles or that they have a
right to be in the road.

Since global warming and the above mentioned problems are becoming more
obvious, why can't cities work to make cycling a more desireable option?
They could make driving an undesireable option or ban them at least on
certain roads.


In general any plans to reduce car usage need to take into account the
incredible utility offered by a private car. Even with all the hassle
and expense they bring, they are still the most attractive option for
LOTS of people. It's not all about expense either. Would I rather sit
40 minutes alone in my car listening to CD's and farting as loud as I
please, or 35 minutes in a crowded bus smelling other's BO, after
sitting 15 minutes in the rain waiting for the bus? How much is that
worth?

Here in Norway gas costs about $7.50, cars have huge taxes such that a
2007 Toyota Corolla costs $41,000 while in the US one costs about
$16,000. There are also numerous permanent road blocks set up to
hinder driving for the express purpose of making it less attractive to
drive, but still only 8% of commuting happens by public transport
(according to an article in the paper yesterday). This is evidence of
the utility of cars. And that's only talking about commuting. Soon I
have to go buy new beds for my kids because they are growing. Doing
that without a car would be whole orders of magnitude more of a
hassle, no doubt much more expensive, and would take hugely more time.
So even though my costs per distance are probably at least 4x what
they would be in the US, it still is beyond a doubt the most
economical solution for me.

One problem with resorting to taxes that artificially raise the cost
of car usage is you widen the gap between the haves and the have nots.
I've heard (don't know if it is true or not) that in Mexico city they
sometimes limit the amount of car traffic by having cars only being
able to be used on alternating days. If your plate ends in an even
number you get to drive one day, while odd numbers drive the next day.
Sounds like a good plan, except rich people just get 2 cars. Or here
in Norway where cars are so expensive, many families can't afford new
safe cars with airbags, abs, etc. So lots of people drive around old
beaters that not only are not as safe as new cars, they are much less
fuel efficient, and bigger polluters.

That said, many more areas in urban centers could be made car-free,
but it would only work if people regarded it as something that was not
just an inconvenience imposed upon them, but a positive change that
had immediate local effect.

Joseph

Carl Fogel wrote:

I don't see anything on the Wiki page about economic benefits of
car-free zones. Is there one near you in Texas that illustrates what
you have in mind?

The only significant car-free zone I know of anywhere in Texas is the
Paseo del Rio in San Antonio. It has been an unqualified boon to that
city for generations, even though it's basically a shopping and
entertainment district. While it's true that the businesses,
residences, and lodging that line the Paseo del Rio are serviced on
their opposite sides by ordinary streets, the area owes its vitality
and its economic activity to the car-free nature of the place.
However, despite its virtues, the Paseo del Rio itself is just a nice
feature of an urban milieu and not a viable town in itself. The fact
that it thrives in a city as wholeheartedly suburbanized and car-
dependent as San Antonio is encouraging, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_River_Walk

The car-free center of Groningen in the Netherlands is probably the
best example of the benefits of restricting car traffic. By all
accounts, Groningen is a more prosperous and far more humane place
than it would have been with the usual free rein granted to motor
vehicles.

http://www.ecotippingpoints.org/stories/capsule04.html
http://www.wolvesonwheels.co.uk/Groningen.htm
http://www.living-room.org/groningen.htm

Groningen's success in this regard seems to be due largely to the
comprehensive nature of their project, and not just because they
barricaded and regulated cars out of the city center. Car-free areas
that are small, sparse, poor in attractions, or insufficiently
integrated into existing community and transportation infrastructure
are likely to fail.

Although it surely must help for a car-free zone to have the physical
scale of a medieval city, just about any downtown laid out before the
advent of automobiles has by its nature a suitable physical
arrangement (though not necessarily a suitable range of businesses) to
serve in that role.

It's time for car driving to disappear as an urban practice, much as
heating with coal and pitching excrement out on the street have
disappeared. It just ain't civilized. Although the reasons for doing
it are clear, just as the reasons for heaving **** out of windows were
clear to the folks who did that, there are better ways of going to
work and getting around to do our commerce and entertainment. We
could have those better forms of transport, and the better way of
living that goes with them, if we only devoted a fraction of the
resources to them that we already do to our cars, streets, and
highways.

Chalo