If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Hamburg, Germany now studying ways to eliminate cars by 2034. Simple solution: Just raise the price of gas to $20 a gallon and see how that works out   (cnbc.com) divider line 15
    More: Unlikely, urban planners, city centres, pedestrian mall, total costs, Mackinac Island, noise pollution, plug-in hybrids  
•       •       •

610 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Jan 2014 at 9:18 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



15 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-29 09:24:22 AM
Congestion charge in London works pretty well. Most people really don't need to drive into London anyway as public transport is very good, but it means for those cars that do, they move around more quickly.
 
2014-01-29 09:56:22 AM
It costs me $26 to drive to work, not even including gasoline cost. Because America.
 
2014-01-29 10:55:06 AM
Subby, what you don't realize is that we may get there... Either that or on the way to $20 a gallon we will have an economic contraction that causes it to be cheaper but still out of reach for many. The fossil fuel party is going to keep going on for a while, but it's getting increasingly expensive.

As for car free city centers, they are quite simply a good idea. The epitome of car centered development is the strip mall; the opposite is Venice, or Stroget in Copenhagen or even much of Boston.
 
2014-01-29 11:57:58 AM
The best thing Bloomberg did for New York City was shut down street segments around the city, especially in and around Times Square, to create larger pedestrian spaces.

Not that the patio furniture sets are of use to anybody but winded obese tourists, but it's nice to have the extra walking room to maneuver around slow-moving traffic without risking a hit from a wayward taxi or bicycle.

/Wandernsraum
 
2014-01-29 12:10:56 PM
I don't think you can.

Cars let you go anywhere, any when, any how, with stops along the way, and bring a trunk with you.  They're awesome.  Mass transit can't do any of that.  The problem is that cars just scale like crap.

So unless they have really, really insanely ubiquitous mass transit to the point where there's a bus on every street that's going faster than the cars coming every 10 minutes, it can't be done without seriously inconveniencing everybody.
 
2014-01-29 01:03:11 PM
God what a nightmare - having to deal with public transportation at 5 am when you are stumbling back piss drunk from the Reeperbahn.

I lived there for 5 years and rarely used my car, but a lack of cabs would suck.   Also $20 a gallon wouldn't matter much for the huge swath of krauts who have company cars.
 
2014-01-29 03:12:39 PM
Old cities, I can handle not allowing cars.  I can even handle city efforts to at least attempt to make public transportation NOT a complete clusterfark.  One or two seem to have it ok -- my city still is clueless and probably will be until the end of time.

But I will move far, FAR away from any modern city that bans private transportation.
 
2014-01-29 05:18:41 PM

elchupacabra: I will move far, FAR away from any modern city that bans private transportation.


If "modern" means "similar in configuration to what we have today," then you would be right to do it.

I could conceive of a new kind of city that's designed so that private transportation would be superfluous, but it wouldn't involve anything like our current public transit systems.

/or Segways.
 
2014-01-29 05:52:15 PM
I'm confused. Won't we all be riding in self-driving electric cars by then? Nobody will care how expensive gas is.
 
2014-01-29 06:12:02 PM

Wynn: I'm confused. Won't we all be riding in self-driving electric cars by then? Nobody will care how expensive gas is.


If we go that way, which would solve the problem rather elegantly.

Problem is still traffic, though.  And City Planners who see any problem as an opportunity to take more control.
 
2014-01-29 06:18:42 PM
They don't use dollars OR gallons...so I don't see how that plan works.
 
2014-01-29 07:44:48 PM
I thought that was Bern, Hamburg was fire bombing.

/Going to fire up SimCity on my Macintosh Plus!
 
2014-01-29 09:08:13 PM
DNRTFA, but how will deliveries work? Other than that, go for it.

/only in North America is owning a car a norm anyways
 
2014-01-30 07:55:57 AM

Electrify: DNRTFA, but how will deliveries work? Other than that, go for it.

/only in North America is owning a car a norm anyways


Because the layout of the US was on a much larger footprint than the old cities of Europe. Our construction boom happened at a time when road systems and suburbs were the thing.
The price of everything would rise accordingly with the taxes because people still have to get to work and have few alternatives to the car.
Unlike the 1% we can't just phone in a day at work or buy a penthouse downtown. The masses would have to suck up the costs until they could afford to move where the trains are.


/If mass transit was more viable then people would already own fewer cars.
/Its not like we really want all the expense.
 
2014-01-30 10:44:17 AM

way south: Because the layout of the US was on a much larger footprint than the old cities of Europe.


You got that right, pardner.
k5rcd.org
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report