Debate About a Plan to Eliminate Private Vehicles

[amorphous_constellation]

Instead, consider loosening zoning laws
to allow higher density building. (Many
cities oppose this.) Then expanded
public transport systems happen naturally.
Also, make cities more pedestrian &
bicycle friendly.

but that isn't great either, because density itself isn't fun most of the time. Unless you can you make it better to start with, before market forces come in. Because I can't see how market forces would blindly reach the conclusion of walkable cities / or heavy but effective public transport as natural market goals. I understand that at a corporate level, they probably to sell as many private car types and parts as they can. At a state level, supposedly they want to build oil reserves. Because they can become valuable over time, I assume

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Over here in Belgium, several cities already have "car free" zones, actually.
These zones are rather small though. In general no need for public transport as everything within it is pretty much at reasonable walking distance.

I heard Barcelona was like that.

Antwerp also has a "low emission" zone. This means that cars need to meet a certain emission standard in order to be able to drive into the city.
A 12-year old diesel car for example, isn't allowed. Smart camera's monitor all license plates that go in and out of the city and check the car model in the national database. Hefty fines follow for those who enter the city with a car that has emissions that don't meet the standard.

I'm not so sure about that type of incentive structure, because it looks to me like it turns into a funding structure via tickets. Why do that, isn't there a better way - to wait for the mass implementation of the technology you want, as opposed to punishing those who for whatever reason are using the old tech? It strikes me as something that is the government's responsibility, and not the public's, exactly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not so sure about that type of incentive structure, because it looks to me like it turns into a funding structure via tickets.

Well, it sure is motivating plenty of people to buy a cleaner car. Not necessarily an electric car, but definitely a car that meets the emission standards.
Me included.... my wife had a 10-year old diesel car. It can still enter Antwerp till the end of this year. Starting jan 1st 2025, the car no longer is allowed in.

So we just bought a new one. Not electric, but very much cleaner then the 10-year old diesel engine.

Why do that, isn't there a better way - to wait for the mass implementation of the technology you want, as opposed to punishing those who for whatever reason are using the old tech? It strikes me as something that is the government's responsibility, and not the public's, exactly.

There's plenty of other measures though.

Traffic tax cuts if you drive electric.
Up to 5000 euro subsidy if you buy an electric car
...

For companies giving workers company cars there is also a LOT of incentive to go electric (and some financial "punishment" if you don't). Accounting wise, it's much cheaper to go electric and more expensive to stay in fossil fuel.

Then there's also that new law (not sure if it's already passed or not) that new fossil fuel cars simply can't be sold in belgium any more from 2035 onwards.

 

[Heyo]

Then there's also that new law (not sure if it's already passed or not) that new fossil fuel cars simply can't be sold in belgium any more from 2035 onwards.

It has passed and it is EU wide.

 

[Viker]

You can pry my Camry hybrid from my cold dead fingers! Molon Labe!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're right about that. Where I live it is more than 3 or 5 per year but still not very bad. Maybe a day at a time things are closed for weather, and it could actually be as little as 5 in a year. Very rarely we'll have snow on the roads for a few days. Occasionally the power goes out. That's not everywhere though. If we had no personal automobiles we'd have other problems but business closures due to weather would not be such a slight.

A lot of the issues around weather disruptions come down to maintenance policy decisions, though. Generally, if cars can get through, so can bikes... as long as the infrastructure for both is maintained to the same standard.

Here (Southern Canada), I've heard Public Works managers describe the bike lane as the "snow storage area". Some places don't even try to clear snow from bike paths - they just put up a sign calling it a "recreational path" to shrug off maintenance obligations. In some places, the windrow of snow that the plows dump at the edge of the road can block transit stops for days.

... and sidewalks are often not even cleared by the city or town at all. They're left to the adjacent property owners to clear. We treat it as a property standards issue, not a transportation infrastructure issue.

When maintenance for walking, biking and transit gets treated with the same priority as maintenance for driving, all of these ways to get around are viable in bad weather.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

but that isn't great either, because density itself isn't fun most of the time.

Density for walkability and transit-friendliness doesn't have to mean towering apartment blocks. Generally, it can mean a nice mix of townhouses, semis, duplexes, with a sprinkling of unattached houses that don't have ridiculous setbacks.

... IOW, the built form we see in all sorts of traditional, sought-after neighbourhoods.

Unless you can you make it better to start with, before market forces come in. Because I can't see how market forces would blindly reach the conclusion of walkable cities / or heavy but effective public transport as natural market goals.

(Sorry - gotta nerd out here a bit)

Two big factors:

- distance/density
- separation of land uses

Developers generally want to make as much money as they can on a development. This generally means density: maximizing residential units or leasable commercial square footage per acre.

Left to their own devices, developers will come up with designs that meet the needs of their customers. They'll also sell to anyone: if they have demand from a convenience store chain to drop a small store in the middle of a residential neighbourhood, they'll meet that demand.

... but then zoning gets in the way. The zoning for the residential neighbourhood might require a big minimum frontage or big side yard setbacks, so everything gets spread out. And the zoning may only allow residential, so that convenience store isn't allowed. Pile all these factors together and suddenly your neighbourhood has nowhere within walking distance where you can buy a loaf of bread.

On the commercial side, in the business park where you might work, there may also be giant setback requirements. There are likely also high minimum parking supply requirements: X spaces for every 1,000 feet of office (or whatever the land use is). A huge proportion of commercial properties gets used for parking these days, often more because of zoning requirements than actual demand from the tenants.

Parking ends up being a double whammg for density, since all that hard surface means more runoff, which means larger stormwater management ponds. This means that if you want to take the bus to work:

- you have to go a long distance (because everything is spread out so much)

- service kinda sucks (because the routes are so long that the number of buses the town can afford only allows for suckily long headways)

- once you walk from your bus stop to the driveway of your office, you still have another 5 minutes to walk to get past the SWM pond and giant parking lot before you actually get to the building front door

Get rid of some the restrictiveness in zoning bylaws/ordinances and walkability generally improves just by developers pursuing profit.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Well, it sure is motivating plenty of people to buy a cleaner car. Not necessarily an electric car, but definitely a car that meets the emission standards.
Me included.... my wife had a 10-year old diesel car. It can still enter Antwerp till the end of this year. Starting jan 1st 2025, the car no longer is allowed in.

So we just bought a new one. Not electric, but very much cleaner then the 10-year old diesel engine.


There's plenty of other measures though.

Traffic tax cuts if you drive electric.
Up to 5000 euro subsidy if you buy an electric car
...

For companies giving workers company cars there is also a LOT of incentive to go electric (and some financial "punishment" if you don't). Accounting wise, it's much cheaper to go electric and more expensive to stay in fossil fuel.

Then there's also that new law (not sure if it's already passed or not) that new fossil fuel cars simply can't be sold in belgium any more from 2035 onwards.

yeah I dunno, I read this book called 'Cobalt Red.' I'm not really sold on the whole electric car thing as of now

I don't know if processing heavy metals to make batteries is saving energy, what are the latest articles on that saying
How safe are these things, would a bad solar storm shut em down

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yeah I dunno, I read this book called 'Cobalt Red.' I'm not really sold on the whole electric car thing as of now

I don't know if processing heavy metals to make batteries is saving energy, what are the latest articles on that saying
How safe are these things, would a bad solar storm shut em down

I'm not sold on the electric car thingy either, but for more practical reasons - not even considering the energy / pollution stuff. But that idd kind of feels like moving the problem elsewhere also.

My biggest "practical" issue I have is the whole charging bit.
I think a much more elegant solution would be to have the battery not a fixed part of the car, but being removable.
Then instead of "charging" for hours, you just drive over an automated platform, have the battery replaced by a fully charged one in 20 seconds and you're on your way again.

But that would require a standard and having all car manufacturers follow that standard. Very hard work. Utopian, even.
But I think it would make the whole thing a lot more attractive from a practical standpoint.

Also no need for a bazillion charging poles everywhere.... You can just convert existing gas stations into "battery replacers".

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Developers generally want to make as much money as they can on a development. This generally means density: maximizing residential units or leasable commercial square footage per acre.

Left to their own devices, developers will come up with designs that meet the needs of their customers. They'll also sell to anyone: if they have demand from a convenience store chain to drop a small store in the middle of a residential neighbourhood, they'll meet that demand.

... but then zoning gets in the way. The zoning for the residential neighbourhood might require a big minimum frontage or big side yard setbacks, so everything gets spread out. And the zoning may only allow residential, so that convenience store isn't allowed. Pile all these factors together and suddenly your neighbourhood has nowhere within walking distance where you can buy a loaf of bread.

they build up the suburb style neighborhoods more and more around here (in the midwest), and those aren't especially high density. But people who can pay for it must want em. Density usually brings property value down a bit.

I don't think I've ever seen new construction that had a small convenience store built along with houses. I don't know, think it's pretty weird that it's like that. It's something about the newer generations of zoning laws.

I don't know what ordinances would control that , because that's more of a local sort of thing, which handles smaller stuff I thought. Construction of housing is kind of a heavy duty thing, I think. So I wonder if the new changes have their roots in state or federal laws

Then again, some ordinances are so ubiquitous that they probably are almost country wide anyway. Like one's against camping in public for example, that seems pretty ubiquitous anyway

I think requirements for utility hookups might come down to ordinances, but I'm not sure. I bet those are prevalent almost everywhere

On the commercial side, in the business park where you might work, there may also be giant setback requirements. There are likely also high minimum parking supply requirements: X spaces for every 1,000 feet of office (or whatever the land use is). A huge proportion of commercial properties gets used for parking these days, often more because of zoning requirements than actual demand from the tenants.

Parking ends up being a double whammg for density, since all that hard surface means more runoff, which means larger stormwater management ponds. This means that if you want to take the bus to work:

- you have to go a long distance (because everything is spread out so much)

- service kinda sucks (because the routes are so long that the number of buses the town can afford only allows for suckily long headways)

- once you walk from your bus stop to the driveway of your office, you still have another 5 minutes to walk to get past the SWM pond and giant parking lot before you actually get to the building front door

Get rid of some the restrictiveness in zoning bylaws/ordinances and walkability generally improves just by developers pursuing profit.

it's crazy to think about the sheer amount of pavement there must be in modern times compared to like 100 years ago

 

[Kathryn]

But that's not sensible. Is the weather only going to be bad 3 to 5 days a year?

We recently had an entire school system shut down because it was too hot at around 92 degrees. I was like "what?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

yeah I dunno, I read this book called 'Cobalt Red.' I'm not really sold on the whole electric car thing as of now

I don't know if processing heavy metals to make batteries is saving energy, what are the latest articles on that saying
How safe are these things, would a bad solar storm shut em down

Electric cars are more about saving the auto industry in the face of climate change than they are about meeting people's transportation needs in a better way.

Their impact is somewhat better than ICE cars, but much worse than pretty much every other transportation option.

 

[Kathryn]

We recently had an entire school system shut down because it was too hot at around 92 degrees. I was like "what?"

I am totally serious, too. It was ridiculous.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The title says to "eliminate" them.
How is that not to ban them?

Oops. More like....heavily discourage. Similar in impact though.

 

[Revoltingest]

but that isn't great either, because density itself isn't fun most of the time.

Many people love it.
Those who don't,
needn't live there.

Unless you can you make it better to start with, before market forces come in. Because I can't see how market forces would blindly reach the conclusion of walkable cities / or heavy but effective public transport as natural market goals.

I understand that at a corporate level, they probably to sell as many private car types and parts as they can. At a state level, supposedly they want to build oil reserves. Because they can become valuable over time, I assume.

That misses my point.
I'd elaborate, but there are difficulties at the moment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oops. More like....heavily discourage. Similar in impact though.

No.