Ban urban vehicles

[Ethel mermania]

There is no talk of banning trucks and deliveries, its private cars.

On the first few pages, he proposed that tram could be used to run trucks

It would be a very bad idea essentially requiring a single delivery system to all locations on the route. Fine art, next to roach killer, next to fresh food. Tbf I haven't seen that as a policy proposal anywhere, thankfully.

I have seen off hours delivery being required and in some places that may make sense, but a single delivery system would be awful.

[Neutraligon]

How do you deal with cities that are more spread out?

[Kragholm Free States]

Banning private transport and stuffing everyone into buses and trams is a great idea... if your goal is to ensure the impact of the next global pandemic is many times worse.

Even aside from my usual objections to the "ban it all" school of political thought, this really is especially silly.

[Major-Tom]

I know Barcelona underwent a massive project to ban vehicles to the effect of every other city block, and it worked well for them. Similarly, there are several European cities where the city centers have tons of designated areas that are car free.

However, in the US, our downtown grids are usually not suitable for a rapid implementation of strict "no-car zones." Think about it, most of our downtowns are not exactly perfect grids, and they were built with the assumption that people leave the dense urban corridor for the highways that usually connect to the corridor itself. Additionally, aside from cities such as NYC, Chicago, San Fran, many US metro areas simply lack quality public transport.

If we wanted to undertake banning vehicles in the downtowns of the US, it would be costly, lengthy and arduous as hell. Not that we couldn't do it, but it's a lot more complex than saying "ban urban vehicles" over here. In other words, the urban design plans of the US are mid 20th century plans that were never built with public transport and pedestrians in mind (save for say, Manhattan and DC).

[Neutraligon]

I know Barcelona underwent a massive project to ban vehicles to the effect of every other city block, and it worked well for them. Similarly, there are several European cities where the city centers have tons of designated areas that are car free.

However, in the US, our downtown grids are usually not suitable for a rapid implementation of strict "no-car zones." Think about it, most of our downtowns are not exactly perfect grids, and they were built with the assumption that people leave the dense urban corridor for the highways that usually connect to the corridor itself. Additionally, aside from cities such as NYC, Chicago, San Fran, many US metro areas simply lack quality public transport.

If we wanted to undertake banning vehicles in the downtowns of the US, it would be costly, lengthy and arduous as hell. Not that we couldn't do it, but it's a lot more complex than saying "ban urban vehicles" over here. In other words, the urban design plans of the US are mid 20th century plans that were never built with public transport and pedestrians in mind (save for say, Manhattan and DC).

Add to that the fact that US cities tend to be more spread out (especially if you consider suburbs) and you get and additional issue

[Major-Tom]

I know Barcelona underwent a massive project to ban vehicles to the effect of every other city block, and it worked well for them. Similarly, there are several European cities where the city centers have tons of designated areas that are car free.

However, in the US, our downtown grids are usually not suitable for a rapid implementation of strict "no-car zones." Think about it, most of our downtowns are not exactly perfect grids, and they were built with the assumption that people leave the dense urban corridor for the highways that usually connect to the corridor itself. Additionally, aside from cities such as NYC, Chicago, San Fran, many US metro areas simply lack quality public transport.

If we wanted to undertake banning vehicles in the downtowns of the US, it would be costly, lengthy and arduous as hell. Not that we couldn't do it, but it's a lot more complex than saying "ban urban vehicles" over here. In other words, the urban design plans of the US are mid 20th century plans that were never built with public transport and pedestrians in mind (save for say, Manhattan and DC).

Add to that the fact that US cities tend to be more spread out (especially if you consider suburbs) and you get and additional issue

This as well, though I imagine the OP was referring more to dense urban corridors.

[The Strangers Club]

Second option suits me the best.

[Forsher]

How do you deal with cities that are more spread out?

They're spread out because of the incredible levels of subsidisation that occurs with cars. This does not mean they require cars to traverse, just that cars have been completely prioritised.

Price cars properly and these cities would suddenly seem very different. And they would experience fairly immediate changes in development patterns.

[Ethel mermania]

How do you deal with cities that are more spread out?

They're spread out because of the incredible levels of subsidisation that occurs with cars. This does not mean they require cars to traverse, just that cars have been completely prioritised.

Price cars properly and these cities would suddenly seem very different. And they would experience fairly immediate changes in development patterns.

So only the wealthy get cars, awesome

[Deacarsia]

What right have you to to dictate where people drive their cars?

Besides, not all urban spaces are the same. Where I live, cars are an absolute necessity for getting around, even in urban areas.

[Northwest Slobovia]

How do you deal with cities that are more spread out?

They're spread out because of the incredible levels of subsidisation that occurs with cars.

And so? The causes are not germane to what to do now.

This does not mean they require cars to traverse, just that cars have been completely prioritised.

I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience with American cities. Chicago, the one I'm most familiar with, is about 30 miles (50km) north-south. That's just to the city limits, not the huge urban and suburban areas that stretch from it in every direction but east (where the lake is). Would you like to explain to me what method allows people at any given point in that expanse to travel to any other point in a plausible amount of time?

Walking? Good luck. Bicycling? My friends who bicycle-commute tell me their practical speed is about 10mph (~15kph), or about three hours end to end. Good luck. Public transit? It's slow; a random analysis reports an average speed on the L (the combined elevated and subway train system) of a litle more than 23mph... and that has a dedicated right of way. So, over an hour end-to-end, each way. Feel free if your time's worthless.

Price cars properly and these cities would suddenly seem very different.

Indeed: any elected officials who voted for that would abruptly find themselves out of a job come the next election.

And they would experience fairly immediate changes in development patterns.

No, they wouldn't. Businesses and residents don't move overnight. In the US, cities are surrounded by conurbs/suburbs, so there's no place to just plop down new buildings. It would take years to adapt to what car-haters consider "proper" pricing. Kicking out any government fool enough to vote for such a scheme is faster and easier... and is what we want, thanks.

[Neutraligon]

They're spread out because of the incredible levels of subsidisation that occurs with cars.

And so? The causes are not germane to what to do now.

This does not mean they require cars to traverse, just that cars have been completely prioritised.

I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience with American cities. Chicago, the one I'm most familiar with, is about 30 miles (50km) north-south. That's just to the city limits, not the huge urban and suburban areas that stretch from it in every direction but east (where the lake is). Would you like to explain to me what method allows people at any given point in that expanse to travel to any other point in a plausible amount of time?

Walking? Good luck. Bicycling? My friends who bicycle-commute tell me their practical speed is about 10mph (~15kph), or about three hours end to end. Good luck. Public transit? It's slow; a random analysis reports an average speed on the L (the combined elevated and subway train system) of a litle more than 23mph... and that has a dedicated right of way. So, over an hour end-to-end, each way. Feel free if your time's worthless.

Price cars properly and these cities would suddenly seem very different.

Indeed: any elected officials who voted for that would abruptly find themselves out of a job come the next election.

And they would experience fairly immediate changes in development patterns.

No, they wouldn't. Businesses and residents don't move overnight. In the US, cities are surrounded by conurbs/suburbs, so there's no place to just plop down new buildings. It would take years to adapt to what car-haters consider "proper" pricing. Kicking out any government fool enough to vote for such a scheme is faster and easier... and is what we want, thanks.

And that is Chicago, not a city in the Midwest, where things are more spread out. I tried to live in SLC without a car as a student, I could not. Not only was the public transport only so so (and only recently got out to the airport), but the hills made biking to get food annoying at best. Oh, and the damn public transport closes early on weekends.

[Northwest Slobovia]

As the research in Delhi, India showed, 70% of pollution seems to be coming from within cities, sure home and other things contribute but I'd suspect the major contributor is the constant thrum of cars, busses, trucks and other vehicles.

Perhaps. What are the vehicle pollution rules like there? What factories are in Delhi? The results may not apply anywhere else.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, motor vehicles produce roughly one-half of pollutants like VOCs, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. Seventy-five percent of carbon monoxide emissions come from automobiles. In urban areas, harmful automotive emissions are responsible for anywhere between 50 and 90 percent of air pollution. All told, that's quite a lot of air pollution coming from our vehicles.

Link.. and yes, I should find the original report..

The citation is at the bottom of the page:

Environmental Protection Agency. "Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act: Cars, Trucks, Buses, and 'Nonroad' Equipment." Aug. 29, 2008. (Nov. 13, 2010)http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/carstrucks.html

So, a 12 year old report, which must be citing earlier data. Since US data is collected by calendar year, it can't be any newer than 2007, and is probably an average of several years previous. US pollution rules have gotten stricter since, so a new analysis would be better. In addition, some states have stepped up car inspections, so cars spewing NOX and/or VOCs (usually unburned gasoline/petrol) have been repaired or retired.

[Costa Fierro]

I suspect if roads, parking, space and emissions were priced properly (or, in many cases, at all), no-one would want to own a vehicle in cities. Actually, they probably don't stack up financially for a lot of people in autodependent cities anyway. It's just that people don't care and, frankly, don't think to evaluate private vehicles in these terms. Look at a fucking car ad. How many of them actually feature other vehicles? How cars will actually be used simply has nothing to do with their value.

Oh, and congestion. That's not really the same as pricing roads properly. Whether it would exist if roads and parking (let alone space and emissions as well) were properly priced is another question, though.

(As a practical exercise, parking and congestion are the easiest things to price. Once those become normal, pricing everything is made easier. While it seems unlikely companies like the Warehouse, Walmart, Tesco etc. would ever expense employee vehicles because, you know, worker exploitation, this is a valid concern when it comes to other kinds of employers. And then there's the question of low paid but home based care professions in ageing societies... plumbers and electricians etc. are in a position to up their already exorbitant rates so I don't think we need to worry about them.)

Banning cars in cities is... limited by the difficulty in defining cities. For example, this and this are both Auckland. And while that seems stupid because obviously the latter is rural, what about somewhere like this? Clearly, semi-rural. And, for that matter, ought we count this as urban? It's obviously suburban, right? But pretty much all of Auckland is like Manurewa, except the fringes which are like Drury. It gets worse when you remember it's all in flux too... only ten years ago, Drury was clearly separated by rural living from Papakura... which brings one back to the political boundaries, but that's that first set of images again.

And here's the other thing... this stretch of the Great South Road has (imo) some of the worst congestion in Auckland. But there's really no particular reason for this to be the case. Even in Auckland, we're talking about an area well served by busses and trains (even if the latter are admittedly really slow). So... the suburban area is getting urban problems... honestly, more so than Symonds St (a major CBD arterial) does.

It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't a hard-on in this country for building vast areas of detached and semi-detached suburbia with virtually no public transport connections which builds-in car dependency.

But that's what we get for embracing neoliberalism for three and a half decades.

[Northwest Slobovia]

And so? The causes are not germane to what to do now.


I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience with American cities. Chicago, the one I'm most familiar with, is about 30 miles (50km) north-south. That's just to the city limits, not the huge urban and suburban areas that stretch from it in every direction but east (where the lake is). Would you like to explain to me what method allows people at any given point in that expanse to travel to any other point in a plausible amount of time?

Walking? Good luck. Bicycling? My friends who bicycle-commute tell me their practical speed is about 10mph (~15kph), or about three hours end to end. Good luck. Public transit? It's slow; a random analysis reports an average speed on the L (the combined elevated and subway train system) of a litle more than 23mph... and that has a dedicated right of way. So, over an hour end-to-end, each way. Feel free if your time's worthless.


Indeed: any elected officials who voted for that would abruptly find themselves out of a job come the next election.


No, they wouldn't. Businesses and residents don't move overnight. In the US, cities are surrounded by conurbs/suburbs, so there's no place to just plop down new buildings. It would take years to adapt to what car-haters consider "proper" pricing. Kicking out any government fool enough to vote for such a scheme is faster and easier... and is what we want, thanks.

And that is Chicago, not a city in the Midwest, where things are more spread out.

I realize you spend most of your time in Gotham, but Chicago is usually considered in the Midwest. The city is very flat and spread out, and I don't mean the land: one reason it's grown so broad is because any building taller than three stories must have an elevator. As a result, it's a city of three-story buildings punctuated by high-rises (well, the Loop is all high-rises, but I digress).

Chicagoland, including all the urban and suburban areas outside city limits, spreads both into southeastern Wisconsin and northwestern Indiana. It's perfectly possible, if time consuming, to take Chicago commuter trains from Kenosha, Wisconsin to practically the Indiana-Michigan border, it's economic area is so vast.

[Northwest Slobovia]

It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't a hard-on in this country for building vast areas of detached and semi-detached suburbia with virtually no public transport connections which builds-in car dependency.

Public transportation is hard to support in a lot of suburbs. One of the books I have on mass transit -- yes, I like it, but it needs to be dragged into the 21st century to have a hope of meeting 21st century needs -- mentions 12,000 people/square mile as a floor for mass transit.

[Novus America]

I suspect if roads, parking, space and emissions were priced properly (or, in many cases, at all), no-one would want to own a vehicle in cities. Actually, they probably don't stack up financially for a lot of people in autodependent cities anyway. It's just that people don't care and, frankly, don't think to evaluate private vehicles in these terms. Look at a fucking car ad. How many of them actually feature other vehicles? How cars will actually be used simply has nothing to do with their value.

Oh, and congestion. That's not really the same as pricing roads properly. Whether it would exist if roads and parking (let alone space and emissions as well) were properly priced is another question, though.

(As a practical exercise, parking and congestion are the easiest things to price. Once those become normal, pricing everything is made easier. While it seems unlikely companies like the Warehouse, Walmart, Tesco etc. would ever expense employee vehicles because, you know, worker exploitation, this is a valid concern when it comes to other kinds of employers. And then there's the question of low paid but home based care professions in ageing societies... plumbers and electricians etc. are in a position to up their already exorbitant rates so I don't think we need to worry about them.)

Banning cars in cities is... limited by the difficulty in defining cities. For example, this and this are both Auckland. And while that seems stupid because obviously the latter is rural, what about somewhere like this? Clearly, semi-rural. And, for that matter, ought we count this as urban? It's obviously suburban, right? But pretty much all of Auckland is like Manurewa, except the fringes which are like Drury. It gets worse when you remember it's all in flux too... only ten years ago, Drury was clearly separated by rural living from Papakura... which brings one back to the political boundaries, but that's that first set of images again.

And here's the other thing... this stretch of the Great South Road has (imo) some of the worst congestion in Auckland. But there's really no particular reason for this to be the case. Even in Auckland, we're talking about an area well served by busses and trains (even if the latter are admittedly really slow). So... the suburban area is getting urban problems... honestly, more so than Symonds St (a major CBD arterial) does.

It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't a hard-on in this country for building vast areas of detached and semi-detached suburbia with virtually no public transport connections which builds-in car dependency.

But that's what we get for embracing neoliberalism for three and a half decades.

Suburbia dates back before neoliberalism although admittedly early suburbs were usually better planned than the latter ones.
Actually suburbs were one of the reasons for the vast improvements in living standards on the post war era, giving the middle and working class (well yes one could say white, but that is not intrinsic to the system more a product of the time) the opportunity to own their own homes and live in a nice quiet place with a yard over backed like sardines into disease ridden cities.

And in this pandemic the value of the suburbs is becoming clear again.
We just need better suburbs that would actually look like early suburbs but using electric vehicles.
My little brother lives in what I would say is a near perfect basic suburb. It was built from the late 40s to early 60s.

[Neutraligon]

And that is Chicago, not a city in the Midwest, where things are more spread out.

I realize you spend most of your time in Gotham, but Chicago is usually considered in the Midwest. The city is very flat and spread out, and I don't mean the land: one reason it's grown so broad is because any building taller than three stories must have an elevator. As a result, it's a city of three-story buildings punctuated by high-rises (well, the Loop is all high-rises, but I digress).

Chicagoland, including all the urban and suburban areas outside city limits, spreads both into southeastern Wisconsin and northwestern Indiana. It's perfectly possible, if time consuming, to take Chicago commuter trains from Kenosha, Wisconsin to practically the Indiana-Michigan border, it's economic area is so vast.

Sorry I was more thinking areas West of Chicago but not on the West coast.

It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't a hard-on in this country for building vast areas of detached and semi-detached suburbia with virtually no public transport connections which builds-in car dependency.

But that's what we get for embracing neoliberalism for three and a half decades.

Suburbia dates back before neoliberalism although admittedly early suburbs were usually better planned than the latter ones.
Actually suburbs were one of the reasons for the vast improvements in living standards on the post war era, giving the middle and working class (well yes one could say white, but that is not intrinsic to the system more a product of the time) the opportunity to own their own homes and live in a nice quiet place with a yard over backed like sardines into disease ridden cities.

And in this pandemic the value of the suburbs is becoming clear again.

Indeed Suburbia dates back at least to the white flight...

[Northwest Slobovia]

I realize you spend most of your time in Gotham, but Chicago is usually considered in the Midwest. The city is very flat and spread out, and I don't mean the land: one reason it's grown so broad is because any building taller than three stories must have an elevator. As a result, it's a city of three-story buildings punctuated by high-rises (well, the Loop is all high-rises, but I digress).

Chicagoland, including all the urban and suburban areas outside city limits, spreads both into southeastern Wisconsin and northwestern Indiana. It's perfectly possible, if time consuming, to take Chicago commuter trains from Kenosha, Wisconsin to practically the Indiana-Michigan border, it's economic area is so vast.

Sorry I was more thinking areas West of Chicago but not on the West coast.

Fair enough. I'd say that was Midwest, the Great Plains, and into the mountains. The Twin Cities are pretty spread out, too, but I don't know them as well as Chicago.

[Neutraligon]

Sorry I was more thinking areas West of Chicago but not on the West coast.

Fair enough. I'd say that was Midwest, the Great Plains, and into the mountains. The Twin Cities are pretty spread out, too, but I don't know them as well as Chicago.

Chicago is rather spread out. I had family go to University of Chicago and lived in that area. Took forever to get to the central part of Chicago by public transport, and that is excluding the wait time.

[Novus America]

I realize you spend most of your time in Gotham, but Chicago is usually considered in the Midwest. The city is very flat and spread out, and I don't mean the land: one reason it's grown so broad is because any building taller than three stories must have an elevator. As a result, it's a city of three-story buildings punctuated by high-rises (well, the Loop is all high-rises, but I digress).

Chicagoland, including all the urban and suburban areas outside city limits, spreads both into southeastern Wisconsin and northwestern Indiana. It's perfectly possible, if time consuming, to take Chicago commuter trains from Kenosha, Wisconsin to practically the Indiana-Michigan border, it's economic area is so vast.

Sorry I was more thinking areas West of Chicago but not on the West coast.

Suburbia dates back before neoliberalism although admittedly early suburbs were usually better planned than the latter ones.
Actually suburbs were one of the reasons for the vast improvements in living standards on the post war era, giving the middle and working class (well yes one could say white, but that is not intrinsic to the system more a product of the time) the opportunity to own their own homes and live in a nice quiet place with a yard over backed like sardines into disease ridden cities.

And in this pandemic the value of the suburbs is becoming clear again.

Indeed Suburbia dates back at least to the white flight...

Actually well before it. Suburbia began around NYC around the turn of the century.
And grew in the 1920s. Of course the post war boom was the main point, but white flight did not really set in in mass amounts until the late 60s.

But the thing is, early suburbia improved lives greatly for much of the population.

[Costa Fierro]

Suburbia dates back before neoliberalism although admittedly early suburbs were usually better planned than the latter ones.

Because later suburban developments were designed to promote car transport.

I should mention at this stage is that prior to the mid-late 1980's, New Zealand had the most controlled and protected economy outside of the Warsaw Pact. After the economic reforms, it was an easier place (and remains as such) to do business than the United States.

Part of these reforms was to remove public transport from city council control, where it was heavily subsidised and had considerably expanded services. The Local Government Act 1989 mandated that public transport be spun off or privatised entirely, to the detriment of both the public transport networks and those who used them. Services contracted considerably and became more expensive. Thinking back on it, I remember how much school bus prices inflated during high school, from roughly $1.50 when I started using the bus to $2.20 when high school finished.

My hometown's bus service is an example of this: minimal services and it's expensive to get from the actual suburbs into town. The most expensive one way fare is $4.00.

[Forsher]

So only the wealthy get cars, awesome

Yes, because car ownership isn't already a signal of wealth.

Oh, wait.

The current system is terrible for the environment and means that families have to waste money on the very basis of their deprivation... and if they're unable to put that cash together they suffer because, again, cars are the reason they need cars.

This analysis makes less sense, to be sure, in old world pre-car cities, but still holds.

They're spread out because of the incredible levels of subsidisation that occurs with cars.

And so? The causes are not germane to what to do now.

A moronic proposition. Ever heard of the expression "treating the symptoms, not the cause"?

Perhaps what you mean to say is something more like "But changing the causes isn't going to lead to immediate change in the symptoms or, more correctly, fast enough change"? The problem with that argument is that you have split a paragraph (i.e. one idea) up into two parts to present a falsely disjoint sequence of ideas rather than two connected thoughts.

But that's enough about disingenuous and pathetic rhetorical strategies.

This does not mean they require cars to traverse, just that cars have been completely prioritised.

I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience with American cities. Chicago, the one I'm most familiar with, is about 30 miles (50km) north-south. That's just to the city limits, not the huge urban and suburban areas that stretch from it in every direction but east (where the lake is). Would you like to explain to me what method allows people at any given point in that expanse to travel to any other point in a plausible amount of time?

Remarkably, this is not a remotely unusual city size.

Walking? Good luck. Bicycling? My friends who bicycle-commute tell me their practical speed is about 10mph (~15kph), or about three hours end to end. Good luck. Public transit? It's slow; a random analysis reports an average speed on the L (the combined elevated and subway train system) of a litle more than 23mph... and that has a dedicated right of way. So, over an hour end-to-end, each way. Feel free if your time's worthless.

Ooh... look... you're just throwing out words that the post you're quoting has already responded to because, you know, your points are trite cliches.

This does not mean they require cars to traverse, just that cars have been completely prioritised

I mean, maybe you actually do think causes are irrelevant because at least this way it makes sense that you'd think the slow speeds obtained by public transport options aren't a function of prioritisation.

Or, possibly, this is a completely new discourse for you and you imagine your points are novel? Thus you have absolutely 0 prior familiarity with pretty much the most basic talking points...

But, okay, fine, you mention dedicated right of way. What is the function of the L Train? Are we comparing like with like? Because, hey, equivalent commuting journey... in an end to end route is, voila, comparable. Or, apparently, sometimes one lucks out and it's 40min of peak traffic. Fun.

But there's all sorts of unpriced things that aren't taken into account there. The variability of road commuting. People tend to ignore that, even as they plan for delays in public transport. The value of the time wasted driving (where basically only two things can happen... driving and listening) versus what can be done on a non-crowded train (no idea how full these get). It's not actually equivalent and never will be.

Oh, and since you brought up familiarity let's talk about what I'm familiar with. So, our Red Line trip is apparently about 42km, takes 65min => 38.7 km/h. Google Maps says I'm looking at a 51min trip over approx. 32.6km or 38.4km/h. Except, that should really be 55min and 35.6 km/h. And if you go from the other direction (i.e. West) looks to be about a 25.2 km journey (disclaimer, the distances are from the car version so they're estimates) which takes 46min so that gives us, oof, 32.9 km/h. (There is no one in their right mind that would drive this route though... it's just what I had to do to get a reasonable approximation of the track distance.)

It's enough to make you wonder why people do this... until you remember, again, that time in a car and time in a train aren't remotely comparable... and that you're ignoring that for a commuter the differences are way less than you suggest by not providing peak hour car based times.

Price cars properly and these cities would suddenly seem very different.

Indeed: any elected officials who voted for that would abruptly find themselves out of a job come the next election.

Again, these are not remotely new ideas you're throwing out. I direct your attention to my earlier post:

It's just that people don't care and, frankly, don't think to evaluate private vehicles in these terms. Look at a fucking car ad. How many of them actually feature other vehicles? How cars will actually be used simply has nothing to do with their value.

[...]

(As a practical exercise, parking and congestion are the easiest things to price. Once those become normal, pricing everything is made easier.

Let me clue you in to how this works. In the second paragraph I'm addressing the notion of political feasibility... first thing to realise is why it's in brackets. This means it's a supplementary consideration. We're not talking about the viability, but whether we should try. But, at the same time, I'm aware that in the real world we do care about feasibility (or, maybe, I'm again anticipating someone like yourself ignoring what we're doing here in order to try and score points) and including a sketch outline of how you would go about actually implementing this sort of thing.

In the first paragraph I'm talking about the disconnect between how people think about private vehicles versus public transport options. A disconnect you have so thoughtfully exemplified for the thread, so thank you.

And they would experience fairly immediate changes in development patterns.

No, they wouldn't. Businesses and residents don't move overnight. In the US, cities are surrounded by conurbs/suburbs, so there's no place to just plop down new buildings. It would take years to adapt to what car-haters consider "proper" pricing. Kicking out any government fool enough to vote for such a scheme is faster and easier... and is what we want, thanks.

Hey, it's like development patterns are describing how people intend to shape the built form rather than what the actual built form looks like. Words! They have meanings!'

And, sure, maybe I'd suggest that it's reasonable to think I meant to describe the built form from the rather ambiguous phrase "development patterns" but you've been so utterly dishonest in how you've approached replying that you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, that's enough of your commie bullshit. Gimme some red blooded Americans who want to discuss the benefits of the free market.

(Seriously, it's funny how the only people who apply free market principles to transport are environmentalists and academic economists. Incidentally, some analyses suggest malls use free parking as a loss leader. If you want an example, just say so... it's sitting right there in my files. Probably pay walled for you, mind, and also it's almost all maths.)

[Forsher]

And that is Chicago, not a city in the Midwest, where things are more spread out. I tried to live in SLC without a car as a student, I could not. Not only was the public transport only so so (and only recently got out to the airport), but the hills made biking to get food annoying at best. Oh, and the damn public transport closes early on weekends.

Chicago is a city in the Midwest. In fact, I think it was the most Midwest Midwest state. And surely SLC is Salt Lake City which isn't remotely Midwestern?

But imagine how much better you could make not using a car in those places with (a) more public transport and (b) funding it from the pricing of the roads... Public transport provision quality is a function not only of the way suburban/autodependent cities are built but also what they do to city money and the civic desire for public transport.

To the built form argument, let's look at cul de sacs. These are terrible since walking to a bus on a major thoroughfare takes forever. You can kind of see that in the first link, right? Well, here I think the top left road is the thoroughfare in this image in what we might call a counter-point article. While that article is talking about how within a cul de sac walkability exists (the first is about how they destroy walkability between places) the point I'm making is to get to the main road a hell of a lot of walking has to be done. First, you go down the cul-de-sac, then across the span of two houses (so, not that far) but then you've got to go all the way up that central road. If there was a simple walkway at the end of each of those cul-de-sacs, things would be very different.

(Salt Lake City is a grid, but the way I read that first article, again for clarity, makes me think the intersections are far enough apart much of the things that can be said of cul de sacs holds true here too.)

But maybe you're thinking that you can compensate for this by running the busses into these developments. Well, no, that just creates crazily convoluted routes that create detours. For example, the 366 in Auckland. To get to the Botanic Gardens from Manurewa by public transport you've got to tiki tour through the Gardens suburb. Compare this with this. And, yes, that first route is not the most direct one and you could get off and walk (or even walk the whole way) but the point is that to provide functional PT connections to people in the Gardens you have to drive the bus through the whole thing.

So, if that's the case, why does having the money and doing more help? Well, you can run feeder busses better. It involves transfers which are, you know, kind of ugh and get so much worse if the Journey Planners aren't very good (Google Maps is a third party system and should not be taken as gospel, which would be fine if you could be sure the transport agency's own version can be... that's not always true)... but it means that you can echo the road layout design pattern of:

drive there, of course, first along a large arterial highway, then down a main thoroughfare, then a collector road, then a local street pulling into his own private driveway at the end of a cul-de-sac.

And, admittedly, this is the function of the 366. It's a feeder that collects people that live to the right of Manurewa Train Station and up to Manukau Train Station (both of which also have bus interchanges, but the latter is much, much bigger and more modern). However, it's still possible to see that fundamental changes to how public transport works are possible simply by having more of it. They can't fully deal with the problems created by 20th Century idiots... although paying people to create little thoroughfares through their property would also help... but they can do a lot about it.

It should hopefully be self evident that providing services across spread out cities is more expensive than providing services across compact cities. Similarly, I would hope we don't need to have elaborate conversations about how the US habit of using property taxes, having absolutely whacky political versus geographic boundaries and the resultant death spirals of the "inner city" and the aforementioned cultural values about both cars and city living affect perceptions of public transport.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Ban urban living.