Are Cars in Metro Cities Causing More Harm Than Good?

[Ryan_m_b]

You don't need to ban cars, just make other transport options affordable and convenient. Everyone I know who has lived in a city with good public transit says the ability to live without a car is a plus. It's cheaper, easier and less stressful.

The problem comes when you don't have the space for the infrastructure needed e.g no space for bus lanes, tram ways etc. In that situation you often get cars competing with public transport for space on the road which puts people off. Not saying it can't work but in some situations congestion charges and car bans are worth it.

The latter point reminded me, in Brussels they have a day in the year called no car day. I'll try to dig up a link but I think you have to pay a fee to be able to drive that day.

 

[DoggerDan]

The problem comes when you don't have the space for the infrastructure needed e.g no space for bus lanes, tram ways etc. In that situation you often get cars competing with public transport for space on the road which puts people off. Not saying it can't work but in some situations congestion charges and car bans are worth it.

I don't think car bans are appropriate at all, for many reasons.

I buy groceries for the month, with the number of bags too large and cumbersome for a bus. Should I be forced to take a taxi?

I shop weekly for the perishables, so yes, I could apportion my non-perishable purchases out over the month and make it happen. But meal-planning is a snap when done on a monthly basis. It gets more complicated when your non-perishables are revolving. Still, there are tools like http://www.mealsmatter.org/

What if I want to buy a chair? Must I take the taxi? How about if I'm getting rid of it and want to take it too a friend's instead of throwing it away or donating it? Must I hire a moving truck/van just to do that?

Let's say I lived in a big city yet take frequent business trips to a nearby, much smaller city, one without effective city transportation. If cars were banned, I'd have to either take a train or bus to that city, then be stuck without a vehicle there. Must I be forced to rent a car to do that?

Let's say a friend and I want to take FREX (Front Range Express), the inter-city shuttle bus, to spend the day at Elitch Gardens, a theme park in Denver. In the summer, the park is open from 10am-9pm. Frex can get us there on time in the morning (service starts at 4:02 in the morning where we'd pick it up), but the last bus leaves Elitch at 7:11pm, two hours before the park closes, and smack in the middle of any of the many concerts they have going throughout the summer. Furthermore, let's look at the cost: $11 per person per direction, so that's a total of $44 for the two of us. If I drove, the distance is 125.2 miles round trip. At $0.24 per gallon (gas, oil, tires, wear and tear, and depreciation all factored in), that comes to $30. Even allowing for $10 for daily parking, we're still $4 ahead, and have the convenience of being able to go elsewhere in Denver that day without hassle.

Now, let's look at my city's public transportation site: http://www.springsgov.com/SectionIndex.aspx?SectionID=16

I'm no stranger to public transportation. I spent a few years of my youth in D.C. a took public transportation quite often. But I drove, too, as the Metro system up there isn't perfect. So, when I arrived here in the Springs and saw the buses driving around town, I looked up the schedules hoping to save some bucks. Round-trip fare to downtown would cost a friend of mine and I $5.20. If we drive, it would cost less than $5, and that includes parking meter fees!

Now, let's say I'd like to go downtown, hang out with friends after dinner, grab a few drinks, then head home at the nice, early hour of 10pm without having to worry about driving. Can I do it? No, I can't, as the last bus from downtown to where I live leaves at 6:15pm.

My Point: When taking public transportation is more costly, more time-consuming, or is non-existent during the times I need to travel, then public transportation makes no sense. Around here, public transportation makes sense only for folks who don't have their own vehicles. If you'd otherwise be on foot, it beats being on foot.

The latter point reminded me, in Brussels they have a day in the year called no car day. I'll try to dig up a link but I think you have to pay a fee to be able to drive that day.

Here's a link: http://www.brussels.be/artdet.cfm/5547

It wouldn't work in this town, as the public transportation leaves to much to be desired. Wouldn't work in D.C., either. Even though their public transportation is good, there's just too much going on that's not accessible via public transportation.

I've been to several major cities with good public transportation, including D.C., NY, London, and Paris. I've been to several major cities without good public transportation, including Los Angeles and Seattle.

Public transportation is not a panacea! Banning privately-owned vehicle traffic is a very bad idea for many reasons. Charging a congestion fee might be useful in encouraging people to use public transportation, but a far better incentive is to make public transportation easy, inexpensive, and accommodating in terms of routes and schedules. Unfortunately, most city governments can't resist sticking their fingers into the till. The idea of running it on a non-profit (at cost) basis is beyond their greediness. It's a source of revenue, and they can't resist skimming some profit off the top to be used elsewhere in the city. Personally, I think the "congestion fee" falls into the same category.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

DoggerDan I think you are really missing a lot of my points. I've never advocated getting rid of cars full stop. By "car ban" I don't mean banning people from owning or using cars citywide. At the most I mean restricting some roads to buses and taxis only.

The biggest thing you've missed though is that I haven't suggested anything as a one size fits all approach! There's no point having congestion charges where they aren't needed. Likewise it would be foolish to try to discourage cars without improving public transport to compensate.

EDIT: I feel that we're approaching this with some cultural barriers DD. The past two cities I've lived in both have extensively invested in public transport. Consequently it is almost always faster to get a bus or train rather than drive a car. Other factors meant it was rarely desirable to have a car, for example I have't done a weekly food shop in months. There's simply no need, all I have to do is walk for about 5 minutes and I am at a shop (indeed where I have just moved from there were three major superstores and a plethora of independent stores within a 10 minute walk). So weekly shops for a car load of food get replaced with daily or every other day smaller shops with just a couple of bags. This isn't too unique scenario in the UK whose sparsest populated settlements resemble what in the US would be called suburbs.

 

[BobG]

As I've learned since I moved here this summer, the city council hasn't planned our city's growth very well, yet they (the council) seem to be hardwired into growth at all cost.

I was thinking that sounds a lot like my town.

Now, let's look at my city's public transportation site: http://www.springsgov.com/SectionIndex.aspx?SectionID=16

Well, duh! It is my town!

When planning travel, the planners must have only had number lines to work with. You can travel North-South with no problems, no matter where you are in town. They just forgot that second dimension, so when you try to travel East-West, you wish you didn't.