This article started quite some controversy in some Swiss blogs and newspapers:

Across Europe, Irking Drivers Is Urban Policy

ZURICH — While American cities are synchronizing green lights to improve traffic flow and offering apps to help drivers find parking, many European cities are doing the opposite: creating environments openly hostile to cars. The methods vary, but the mission is clear — to make car use expensive and just plain miserable enough to tilt drivers toward more environmentally friendly modes of transportation.

Cities including Vienna to Munich and Copenhagen have closed vast swaths of streets to car traffic. Barcelona and Paris have had car lanes eroded by popular bike-sharing programs. Drivers in London and Stockholm pay hefty congestion charges just for entering the heart of the city. And over the past two years, dozens of German cities have joined a national network of “environmental zones” where only cars with low carbon dioxide emissions may enter.

Likeminded cities welcome new shopping malls and apartment buildings but severely restrict the allowable number of parking spaces. On-street parking is vanishing. In recent years, even former car capitals like Munich have evolved into “walkers’ paradises,” said Lee Schipper, a senior research engineer at Stanford University who specializes in sustainable transportation.

“In the United States, there has been much more of a tendency to adapt cities to accommodate driving,” said Peder Jensen, head of the Energy and Transport Group at the European Environment Agency. “Here there has been more movement to make cities more livable for people, to get cities relatively free of cars.”

To that end, the municipal Traffic Planning Department here in Zurich has been working overtime in recent years to torment drivers. Closely spaced red lights have been added on roads into town, causing delays and angst for commuters. Pedestrian underpasses that once allowed traffic to flow freely across major intersections have been removed. Operators in the city’s ever expanding tram system can turn traffic lights in their favor as they approach, forcing cars to halt.

Around Löwenplatz, one of Zurich’s busiest squares, cars are now banned on many blocks. Where permitted, their speed is limited to a snail’s pace so that crosswalks and crossing signs can be removed entirely, giving people on foot the right to cross anywhere they like at any time. (...)
This is just 1/3 of the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&sq=zurich&st=cse&scp=3

The article puts things a little bit over the top. Things are of course in reality not that black and white. But in general it grasps the tendencies very good IMO.

I personally prefer this too. It seems that many cities want to go the same way in Europe. Well on the other hand I know at least someone who opposes such politics ;)

^^ I think I know that person too. ;)

Very interesting read and to be honest, I'm glad that European cities are implementing policies that are more hostile to cars to be honest. I live in a city that is very accommodating to cars and it's not a nice built environment.

If only Tallinn were that hostile towards cars... Here car culture still rules. Travelling with PT is often seen as a sign of inferiority, cycling exists only at a recreational level and pedestrians are often forced to make large detours or jaywalk due to the lack of crosswalks. Cars often park on sidewalks or ignore the driving ban in the pedestrian area of the old town. When reconstructing streets sidewalks have often been made narrower while increasing car lanes. Currently a € 100 million interchange is being built at the edge of the city centre while no new tram lines have been built since the 60s and the existing ones barely cross the edges of the city core...I could go on...

It's an utopia to think traffic situation will improve if you implement a more anti-car approach. If you reduce roadway capacity or parking space, traffic will be reduced too, but it won't be any less congested than before, in fact, it will likely be more congested. It's better to keep the status-quo with some minor tweaks. No city benefits from a bad accessibility.

It has to be noted though, that the function of a city center varies drastically between Europe and North-America, hence commuting patterns are different as well. Apart from a few cities, few large office districts in Europe are right in the middle of the city center like in the United States.

One of the main problems with urban transport approach is the idea that public transport, cycling and car driving are largely exchangeable. They are not. Another misconception is that traffic congestion means public transport is faster. It is not. Yes urban center - urban center or within urban centers, but for the majority of the trips, the car is still faster, even including significant traffic congestion. It's no surprise the average commute time of any major city proper in the United States is the longest in the city with the highest public transport usage: New York City.

The goal is not to improve traffic traffic situation but to improve the quality of live in urban space. One of the major misconception of car based cities is, that they subordinate everything to transportation. This leads to cities where mobility is the major part of urban life, which it certainly shouldn't be.

mobility is a basic need, whichever mode of transport you use, whether you're a college student using the bus, a long-distance train commuter, a white-collar worker commuting by car or a sportive person using the bicycle.

A common misconception is that the quality of live has anything to do with the exact traffic volumes. Does the quality of live increase when traffic counts are down by 10 or 20%, but it is still congested because there is a lane less, or there is less parking space? Does the quality of live in your street improve if there are not 25 cars, but 21 cars parked? Does it improve when the average commuting time increases? Motorized traffic is dozens of times cleaner than it ever was before.

Yes, in my city space is very limited. Just look at the Rennweg or Limmatquais for example. The quality of those places increased drammaticly after the parkins and lanes where replaces by pedestrian zones. The same will happen to the Münsterhof.

It's an utopia to think traffic situation will improve if you implement a more anti-car approach. If you reduce roadway capacity or parking space, traffic will be reduced too, but it won't be any less congested than before, in fact, it will likely be more congested. It's better to keep the status-quo with some minor tweaks. No city benefits from a bad accessibility.

It has to be noted though, that the function of a city center varies drastically between Europe and North-America, hence commuting patterns are different as well. Apart from a few cities, few large office districts in Europe are right in the middle of the city center like in the United States.

One of the main problems with urban transport approach is the idea that public transport, cycling and car driving are largely exchangeable. They are not. Another misconception is that traffic congestion means public transport is faster. It is not. Yes urban center - urban center or within urban centers, but for the majority of the trips, the car is still faster, even including significant traffic congestion. It's no surprise the average commute time of any major city proper in the United States is the longest in the city with the highest public transport usage: New York City.

It's not silly to assume that private vehicles can be detrimental to built form. Until you have truly lived in a city that is completely constrained by cars (and one that is not), it is actually quite hard to envision just how much the city can be effectively held to ransom in terms of space by provisions for private vehicles be they parking garages, surface parking, road provision or many other factors associated with the private vehicle.

As for destinations of commutes, well, even in Europe, the city centre is still the focal point for many commutes in a number of cities just as in America there are decentralised nodes of employment (look at the fact that campus office parks actually originated there).

Finally, you assume that point to point commutes are slower by using public transport than by car. My answer is - what is 10 minutes in reality if that is the only difference (which is largely appears to be in cities with good provision of both roads and public transit)? I can show you a number of cities where, if you only take a rail based commute point to point it is much faster (within the city borders) to take the train than it is to drive. But that is the flaw of point to point analysis as that is what many agencies actually do. Not everyone who drives to work has a parking space allocated meaning time to find parking + costs of parking + time to get from parking to work just in the same way as with public transport there is the time to get to/from the mode of transport + transfer times + time waiting.

I, myself, have found it faster for leisure trips to use public transport in a number of cities I have visited around the world than driving (or taking a taxi as is the main option when I have travelled). There is no way in hell I would have driven or taken a taxi in Hong Kong when there are clearly better alternatives. Even in Stockholm I found my journeys around the suburbs to be sufficiently fast enough by public transport for the thought of renting a car to not even be considered.

At the end of the day, this discussion just depends on your ideological bias as each side can show data from various sources that says that one mode is better than the other. You, clearly come down on the side of the car, I, clearly am biased towards public transport and so we reach an impasse.

What always surprises me is how some people complain about car traffic / parking / noise, yet they don't seem to mind about public transport facilities.

For instance; there was huge opposition to the construction of A3 through Zürich, yet look how the railway facilities dominate much of the valley Zürich is positioned in:
http://i.imgur.com/9tOZs.jpg

The goal is not to improve traffic traffic situation but to improve the quality of live in urban space. One of the major misconception of car based cities is, that they subordinate everything to transportation. This leads to cities where mobility is the major part of urban life, which it certainly shouldn't be.

The problem is that there is still to appear a city with heavy use of other-than-car transportation that has lower average commute times than an "auto-centric" city like Los Angeles. People love to loath Los Angeles, but its metro area has an average commute time of 36 minutes, 13 (27%) less than New York.

Moreover, as they operate today, most commute transit systems (e.g., not talking about long intercity travel) operate with a very low farebox recovery rate. When they are used by a minority of population, a city/region can finance its operational losses by taxing drivers and taking money out of the general fund. But if they were to comprise a large part of the city movements, the "budget hole" would grow, and there would be less drivers to extract taxes from, bankrupting the system.

Then, you'd need to do something that, IMO, is unacceptable: reduce overall mobility (regardless of the mean of transportation), like "oh, you live in Wald or Züti? Forget about having a job in Zürich, because we don't have money to keep moving you every day 40km.

Even with extensive commute rail networks, it would be prohibitively expensive for any European city to embark in a quest to provide an average commute time using 70% of passenger*km via transit that could be provided with an optimized situation for 70% of pax*km via car. Peripheral trips around a macro-are are VERY hard to be made efficient via a spike-designed commute network.

Taken to extremes, your reasoning would imply we should tear down all "fast" mobility infrastructure, from high-speed rail to highways, because people, not mobility, is what matters... Then you'd also end people commuting daily via rail from Basle to Zürich, from Montreaux to Bern and so on. The country would go backwards.

At least in terms of specialized jobs, mobility increases quality of life. One could argue (with my fierce opposition, but it is still debatable) that smaller supermarkets scattered around the city are better than 20.000m² hipermarkets America-style. However, when it comes to more specialized stuff like universities, high-level jobs etc., you can't scatter them in hope people will live close to their workplaces, unless you assume double-income households are to be phased out.

A person's ability to earn more money is vastly improved when the person has access to a wider selection of jobs. And you can't get that without having mobility (or without turning all cities in mini-versions of Manhattan (Manhattan, not NYC Metro), something that would reason well with some forumers, but not with majority of population at all) cramping the whole Switzerland population in just 3 giant highly veritcalized cities and relegating every other town to the status of "rural cottage".

Until you have truly lived in a city that is completely constrained by cars (and one that is not), it is actually quite hard to envision just how much the city can be effectively held to ransom in terms of space by provisions for private vehicles be they parking garages, surface parking, road provision or many other factors associated with the private vehicle. The problem is that one of the main effects of car mobility is access to bigger houses, something that is not that popular in SSC with its particular odd demographics, but usually goes well with families with minor children.


Finally, you assume that point to point commutes are slower by using public transport than by car. My answer is - what is 10 minutes in reality if that is the only difference (which is largely appears to be in cities with good provision of both roads and public transit)?

10 minutes each way compounded over 260 working days a year is like 5200 minutes, 84 bloody hours. Not negligible at all. But another factor to be considered is that cities with higher use of transit have shorter commutes because the anti-car policies force people to not live as far as they wished, thus sacrificing space for reduced commute time. Only the poorer ones (students, minimum wage earners) are benefited by heavy use of transit on a landslide scale.

Not everyone who drives to work has a parking space allocated meaning time to find parking + costs of parking + time to get from parking to work just in the same way as with public transport there is the time to get to/from the mode of transport + transfer times + time waiting.

Whomever drives everyday to work develops a quick scheme to park. Be it renting a place per month, or parking on a company-sponsored parking (paid or free) etc. In any case, it is the last mile from/to home that is more critical to transit networks than the other way around. Job places are usually concentrated. Even in a giant 3km²-large industrial plant, there are only few points of entry, for instance. Housing is far more scattered.

And we didn't even started the comfort discussion. While the long car trip + long train trip might be opened to debate, it is hard to argue that commute subways, buses, trams and trains, where you are expected to connect many times and to travel standing on peak hours, is more comfortable than riding a car.

I, myself, have found it faster for leisure trips to use public transport in a number of cities I have visited around the world than driving (or taking a taxi as is the main option when I have travelled). There is no way in hell I would have driven or taken a taxi in Hong Kong when there are clearly better alternatives. Even in Stockholm I found my journeys around the suburbs to be sufficiently fast enough by public transport for the thought of renting a car to not even be considered.
Leisure trips are not a good indicator of mobility access. In most cases, touristic sites, mainstream or not, are on more central or accessible areas. If they are far out, there will be some transit scheme to get there.

Unless someone has friends or acquaintances to visit, there is rarely a reason for a visitor to Stockholm, München, Amsterdam, London, Denver, Sydney to travel frequently and fast to different outlying areas in a city. Then, even if a trip takes longer, it is the case that you are not travelling there daily, so 15, 30, 50 min more is not impacting you on a daily basis.

What always surprises me is how some people complain about car traffic / parking / noise, yet they don't seem to mind about public transport facilities.

For instance; there was huge opposition to the construction of A3 through Zürich, yet look how the railway facilities dominate much of the valley Zürich is positioned in

Zürich HB has nearly every train movement in that area of Switzerland pass through it. For a fair comparison one would have to compress every motorway in the region into a single choke spot to see how much space that would take up.

You also neglect the carrying capacity of those tracks too compared to a similar sized roadway. The carrying capacity of the trains (ignoring patronage levels) by far exceeds the carrying capacity of a similar sized roadway and this is something that is indisputable. What can be disputed is the patronage and use seen on those tracks relative to the road network to see whether the footprint can be justified and that is something that I'll let someone with local knowledge analyse.

Also, as far as noise concerns, I think you'll find from standing by a roadway compared to your average urban railway (not high speed) that the constant ambient noise from a motorway exceeds that of an urban railway line. In fact I have here an analysis of noise annoyance in a population conducted in 2006 which compares high speed rail and a motorway (http://www.inrets.fr/ur/lte/publications/publications-pdf/Lambert-publi/joncour-2000.pdf). As noted by the researchers, those living next to the high speed railway line noted less noise annoyance than those living near a motorway.

Also, as far as noise concerns, I think you'll find from standing by a roadway compared to your average urban railway (not high speed) that the constant ambient noise from a motorway exceeds that of an urban railway line. In fact I have here an analysis of noise annoyance in a population conducted in 2006 which compares high speed rail and a motorway (http://www.inrets.fr/ur/lte/publications/publications-pdf/Lambert-publi/joncour-2000.pdf). As noted by the researchers, those living next to the high speed railway line noted less noise annoyance than those living near a motorway.

Trucks, not cars, are responsible for most roadway noise. But Chris is the master of noise measurements, not me.

The problem is that one of the main effects of car mobility is access to bigger houses, something that is not that popular in SSC with its particular odd demographics, but usually goes well with families with minor children.

This is a point for another topic specifically about housing. There have been many studies done on the socialisation and independence of children living in urban environments compared to suburban environments that I am willing to discuss with you, but not here as that is not directly related.

10 minutes each way compounded over 260 working days a year is like 5200 minutes, 84 bloody hours. Not negligible at all. But another factor to be considered is that cities with higher use of transit have shorter commutes because the anti-car policies force people to not live as far as they wished, thus sacrificing space for reduced commute time. Only the poorer ones (students, minimum wage earners) are benefited by heavy use of transit on a landslide scale.

This assumes that those 10 minutes are wasted time. Unlike in a car where your attention is solely focused (or should be solely focused) on the task at hand, ie. driving, whilst on a train one is able to carry on with work on ones laptop or carry on reading business reports. When I was travelling back from University during my Postgraduate Diploma year I frequently read papers on the bus going home. During my Masters year due to the unreliability of my experiments and public transport, I had to drive to Uni and therefore I had far less time to do my required reading.

Whomever drives everyday to work develops a quick scheme to park. Be it renting a place per month, or parking on a company-sponsored parking (paid or free) etc. In any case, it is the last mile from/to home that is more critical to transit networks than the other way around. Job places are usually concentrated. Even in a giant 3km²-large industrial plant, there are only few points of entry, for instance. Housing is far more scattered.

But you're talking about major expenses there. Not everyone can be in a high-flying job. Even as a postdoc I could not afford to live in the suburbs and then still rent a place in the city or buy a parking spot in the city. Also I agree that the proximity of your destination to your point of arrival is important, which is why it is important to have a comprehensive public transport system.

And we didn't even started the comfort discussion. While the long car trip + long train trip might be opened to debate, it is hard to argue that commute subways, buses, trams and trains, where you are expected to connect many times and to travel standing on peak hours, is more comfortable than riding a car.

This assumes multiple transfers which, on many systems, is simply not necessary. Even in Tokyo, one can get away with fewer than 2-3 transfers to most suburbs and even if you are standing on the metro, you can always still read a book (or research paper/business report etc) like I did.

Leisure trips are not a good indicator of mobility access. In most cases, touristic sites, mainstream or not, are on more central or accessible areas. If they are far out, there will be some transit scheme to get there.

Unless someone has friends or acquaintances to visit, there is rarely a reason for a visitor to Stockholm, München, Amsterdam, London, Denver, Sydney to travel frequently and fast to different outlying areas in a city. Then, even if a trip takes longer, it is the case that you are not travelling there daily, so 15, 30, 50 min more is not impacting you on a daily basis.

Actually, leisure trips are vitally important when it comes to assessing how useful public transport is. If I can conduct leisure trips in far flung suburbs effectively then it makes public transport more attractive. As for commutes, well, I'll let you know how Stockholm (more PT focused) compares to Auckland (definitely car focused) since I am moving there shortly.

Trucks, not cars, are responsible for most roadway noise. But Chris is the master of noise measurements, not me.

That is beside the point, though. He compared railway noise to motorway noise, and lorries are an integral component on most road systems around the world, and therefore if there is a motorway present in a neighbourhood, then there will be noise from HGV's.

What always surprises me is how some people complain about car traffic / parking / noise, yet they don't seem to mind about public transport facilities.

For instance; there was huge opposition to the construction of A3 through Zürich, yet look how the railway facilities dominate much of the valley Zürich is positioned in:

Esit: My post got messed up :( Here I write it again:

It is not fair to compare railway build in the 19.Century with current projects. You should comare current railway projects with current motorways, or past railways with old motorways.
For example the old A1 uses a lot of space. Just look at the end of it near Hardturm. On the other hand the new railway projects like the new terminal don't use any new space. They are all bridges and tunnels.
Even the S-Bahn back in 1990 didn't use any new space. It even uses less space than the old line. The area in Letten is now open to public.

Just an image form around 1900 to prove that the railways were actually build outside of the city.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Spelterini_Z%C3%BCrich_Industriequartier_1898.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Zuerich_Siegfriedkarte_1881.jpg/800px-Zuerich_Siegfriedkarte_1881.jpg

There were some projects to overbuild parts of those railways, but none succeeded. At least with the new Stadtraum HB, there will be new residental and commercial buildings on space formally used by the SBB and the Post. Maybe the same will happen to the Güterbahnhof (freight station)

As you can see, the railways were build outside of the city.

Sure. But today, they'd say that such a plan will "ruin the picturesque countryside". Indeed, had the NIMBYs been around in 1800, we'd still be living in cities without electricity, paved streets, sewage systems, water pipes ("fountains are charming and part of the social life of the city") and, God forbid, "horse-disturbing electric streetcars".

Actually there were protectionists back then, otherwise we wouldn't have our picturesque old town anymore. There were several plans to tear it down.

There was simply more space left back then.

Building the terminus so close to the centre was a good idea. Building all the freight train infrastructure that close wasn't.

Toronto's former Mayor David Miller was anti-car, and implemented several bike lanes, removed vehicle lanes, and proposed a massive LRT network across city streets. But we elected a new Mayor in October who is pro-car, and cancelled the LRT network and has been removing all the bike lanes Miller implemented and wants to make the city more car-friendly. So basically, any progress we had has been reversed.

I'm pro transit, but making cities too anti-car is just as bad as making it anti-transit.

The problem with the pro-transit idea, in england at least, as that it's purely about being anti-car, rather than being pro-transit.

They bring in congestion charges into driving to London, for example, yet keep raising the train fares into London as that's our idea of "a solution" to the problem of trains being overcrowded.


Public transport is great, but it only really works well in high-density areas. I live 12 miles from where I work, but even and incredibly bad car journey is quicker than using public transport, and far cheaper too.

I never understood the claim that using your car is cheaper than public transit. It's not, at least not in Toronto. Right off the bat you have to buy a $20,000 car, plus put $50-100 a week for gas. If you take transit in Toronto, you can get a metropass which allows for unlimited travel for one month for $121. It may take longer, but I'd still say it's worth it not having to worry about congestion, vehicle repairs, gas, gas tax, licensing fees, etc.

^^ Few people claim car is cheaper for regular commutes. However, for many it is faster, despite congestion, due to advantages on the so-called "last-mile" ad each end of the trip.

Errands like going out to a club, restaurant or social function out of the way will always be cheaper and faster than rely in night buses/taxis.

Even if a person doesn't use a car for daily commute, it is still helpful to buy groceries in bulk (particularly if one has family with kids), take the family or friends to some park etc. It also helps dating, depending on the circumstances (not how flashy your car is, but how easily you can go for a concert/movie/dinner without freaking out about transit schedules or forking expensive night taxi fareS).

Travelling with 3 people (spouse + child, for instance) will rarely cost more on car than on train or any other regional transit. And you are free from schedules.


As people have many reasons to have a car, even if they do not intend using it for commute, the car will be already there, paid and insured, should a light rail route become too crowded, or should a schedule become inconvenient.

I never understood the claim that using your car is cheaper than public transit. It's not, at least not in Toronto. Right off the bat you have to buy a $20,000 car, plus put $50-100 a week for gas. If you take transit in Toronto, you can get a metropass which allows for unlimited travel for one month for $121. It may take longer, but I'd still say it's worth it not having to worry about congestion, vehicle repairs, gas, gas tax, licensing fees, etc.

I use my car for plenty of other things too. My car cost £6000 over 7 years ago.

I pay about £40 every two weeks for fuel.

I pay about £250 for insurance, and maybe £500 for other misc stuff each year.


Assuming my car will last 10 years, it works out at...(per month)
cost of car £50
Fuel £80
insurance £21
misc £42
Total £193


Public transport...
I'd need to take two buses, which are £46 and £52 for a monthly ticket.
The train would be £93 for a monthly pass.

Total £191.
At first glance it looks like I'd save a whole £2 a month going by public transport, but it ignores the fact that probably around 40% of my car use (by mileage) is for trips that aren't to/from work.

If I did twice my commuting milage in a month, it won't cost me another £193. It'd just be another £80.

The public transport, on the other hand, may cost far more, as I wouldn't necessarily be going places covered by my rail/bus passes.

It would also take far longer.

I can drive in to work in 25 minutes usually. By public transport I need to leave a whole hour earlier.

Would you get up a whole hour earlier in the morning to save 10p a day?

I found the article a bit bias since here in the USA we are a car dependent society and view the automobile as the primary means of getting about. I am slightly upset because the author comes off as orrogant as if everyone should be driving instead of using the "stupid bike or subway."

I use my car for plenty of other things too. My car cost £6000 over 7 years ago.

I pay about £40 every two weeks for fuel.

I pay about £250 for insurance, and maybe £500 for other misc stuff each year.


Assuming my car will last 10 years, it works out at...(per month)
cost of car £50
Fuel £80
insurance £21
misc £42
Total £193


Public transport...
I'd need to take two buses, which are £46 and £52 for a monthly ticket.
The train would be £93 for a monthly pass.

Total £191.
At first glance it looks like I'd save a whole £2 a month going by public transport, but it ignores the fact that probably around 40% of my car use (by mileage) is for trips that aren't to/from work.

If I did twice my commuting milage in a month, it won't cost me another £193. It'd just be another £80.

The public transport, on the other hand, may cost far more, as I wouldn't necessarily be going places covered by my rail/bus passes.

It would also take far longer.

I can drive in to work in 25 minutes usually. By public transport I need to leave a whole hour earlier.

Would you get up a whole hour earlier in the morning to save 10p a day?


In Toronto, you can take the bus, train, and streetcar all on one pass. It's $121 a month for unlimited travel. I know people who spend $121 on gas alone every month, let alone insurance and car repairs. Suburbanite is right though. If you have a family, it is obviously much more convenient and cost-effective to drive. If you live alone, it makes sense to take transit.

It also depends on the city. If I was commuting from a suburb of Toronto into the city everyday (meaning two separate transit fares), it would probably be cheaper to drive. But then again, parking downtown is fairly expensive and ranges from $5-40 a day.

^^ Few people claim car is cheaper for regular commutes. However, for many it is faster, despite congestion, due to advantages on the so-called "last-mile" ad each end of the trip.

Errands like going out to a club, restaurant or social function out of the way will always be cheaper and faster than rely in night buses/taxis.

In most cities, night buses or night transit (some cities such as Berlin or Stockholm in Europe for example run the rail system 24 hours from Friday to Sunday for those going out to clubs) cost the same as regular buses in most cities and accept normal monthly passes. This means that there are no additional costs to most people using public transport to get home - plus if they have been drinking it is a LOT safer to catch public transport home than to drive. In many ways, not having a car in this situation gives you more freedom as you don't have to worry about being intoxicated or, at least, over the legal limit for driving.

Even if a person doesn't use a car for daily commute, it is still helpful to buy groceries in bulk (particularly if one has family with kids), take the family or friends to some park etc. It also helps dating, depending on the circumstances (not how flashy your car is, but how easily you can go for a concert/movie/dinner without freaking out about transit schedules or forking expensive night taxi fareS).

Is it really helpful? I prefer having fresh food rather than food that sits in my fridge for ages. If I buy chicken, I don't want week old supermarket chicken that is expiring that day, I want fresh chicken that I bought that day (just to use an example). I want the freshest possible veg too so I would rather shop daily on my way home from work.

As for a family with kids, many transit agencies allow people with monthly passes to take their kids for free on the weekends and off-peak. This reduces costs significantly. As for the social benefits of exposing the child to the outside world, well, that's another topic, but early socialisation of children builds up independence and makes them more street wise, assisting their development into adults.

I covered the portion about late night transit above too.

Travelling with 3 people (spouse + child, for instance) will rarely cost more on car than on train or any other regional transit. And you are free from schedules.

As people have many reasons to have a car, even if they do not intend using it for commute, the car will be already there, paid and insured, should a light rail route become too crowded, or should a schedule become inconvenient.

Again, many transit agencies offer deals for families to make public transport more flexible. As for schedules, if the transit agency is a good one, then most key routes will be at a turn up and go frequency of 10 minutes so waiting around is not really an issue.

I use my car for plenty of other things too. My car cost £6000 over 7 years ago.

I pay about £40 every two weeks for fuel.

I pay about £250 for insurance, and maybe £500 for other misc stuff each year.


Assuming my car will last 10 years, it works out at...(per month)
cost of car £50
Fuel £80
insurance £21
misc £42
Total £193


Public transport...
I'd need to take two buses, which are £46 and £52 for a monthly ticket.
The train would be £93 for a monthly pass.

Total £191.

This is more to do with the fact that the UK privatised its entire transport network and this has completely shafted commuters. If one were to use an example from the rest of the world, this would certainly not be the case. Also, unless you are crossing city borders, I am surprised to see you need two different passes for each bus - the PTE's should each have their own commuter passes.

I never understood the claim that using your car is cheaper than public transit. It's not, at least not in Toronto. Right off the bat you have to buy a $20,000 car, plus put $50-100 a week for gas. If you take transit in Toronto, you can get a metropass which allows for unlimited travel for one month for $121. It may take longer, but I'd still say it's worth it not having to worry about congestion, vehicle repairs, gas, gas tax, licensing fees, etc.

Not everyone buys a 20,000 car. The last two cars I bought I paid $800 and $3,000 for. And I use $25-50 in gas a week (US$). I drove the $800 car for over a year and sold it for $500. And the $121 doesn't factor in the cost of renting a car or taking a taxi to visit family who live in the country away from transit or the delivery costs for when you buy something and don't have a car to take it home in.

Not everyone buys a 20,000 car. The last two cars I bought I paid $800 and $3,000 for. And I use $25-50 in gas a week (US$). I drove the $800 car for over a year and sold it for $500. And the $121 doesn't factor in the cost of renting a car or taking a taxi to visit family who live in the country away from transit or the delivery costs for when you buy something and don't have a car to take it home in.

This assumes that renting a car often is the norm for those who live without one. While in the UK, I never once even thought about driving despite travelling all around the country. I didn't even get my drivers licence until I moved to New Zealand so it is perfectly conceivable to exist without a car even when ones family lives in a small village a good distance away (like mine did).

As for delivery costs, this again assumes that this is the norm. Even in New Zealand, most companies will offer free delivery home for you (within a certain radius) if you choose not to take a product that day. Also, it comes down to negotiation abilities on large products that don't offer free delivery. As soon as you begin to tighten the screws and say you won't buy it without free delivery, they often fold. :lol:

Not everyone buys a 20,000 car. The last two cars I bought I paid $800 and $3,000 for. And I use $25-50 in gas a week (US$). I drove the $800 car for over a year and sold it for $500. And the $121 doesn't factor in the cost of renting a car or taking a taxi to visit family who live in the country away from transit or the delivery costs for when you buy something and don't have a car to take it home in.

Yes, but even at $25-50 a week for gas, that's $100-200 a month. Add insurance, and public transit looks pretty cheap. On most commutes, public transit is more cost-effective. But there are cases where it's not appropriate, like you said driving out to the country would be much cheaper than taking rail. And you're not going to take a bus to Home Depot and buy a toilet are you? Some commutes are common sense, if you don't have a car you're screwed. But other commutes could very well be made on public transit. People are too used to depending on their car for everything that they don't even consider alternatives anymore.

Not having a car automatically limits your non-commute mobility. Some are willing to compromise that for the money, some are note.

I doubt it exist any metropolitan area in the Western developed world that has a 24/7 transit system providing access to all areas with a transit facility (from a bus stop to a train mega station) within, say, 500m of ANY building and capable of shifting you in rational routes any time, day, night, holidays, providing less then 10min waiting time to start a trip or to wait for any connection. Am I wrong?

Even in London, with its big network of night buses, there are many areas not served by them, there are many areas where one is supposed to walk more than 3 MILES to get to them, and if you want to make trips not starting/ending in the central area, it might well take you 3 hours to travel between two neighborhoods a mere 10km apart on the road network.

The question is not only is a place is reachable, but how easily. A national park with 4 buses a day is reachable, but it requires scheduled trips fit to 2 buses in the morning, 2 buses in the late afternoon (for instance). If you want just to stay couple hours? You're out of luck: no buses to remote hiking trail start point each 10 minutes, while a car gives you instant access anywhere there is a road.

This assumes that renting a car often is the norm for those who live without one. While in the UK, I never once even thought about driving despite travelling all around the country. I didn't even get my drivers licence until I moved to New Zealand so it is perfectly conceivable to exist without a car even when ones family lives in a small village a good distance away (like mine did).

As for delivery costs, this again assumes that this is the norm. Even in New Zealand, most companies will offer free delivery home for you (within a certain radius) if you choose not to take a product that day. Also, it comes down to negotiation abilities on large products that don't offer free delivery. As soon as you begin to tighten the screws and say you won't buy it without free delivery, they often fold. :lol:
I can't speak about the UK, but living without a car would be impossible for me in the USA. I have family that lives over 100 miles from any public transportation. The city I grew up in (metro 450,000 right in the middle of the country) was a 3 hour drive to the closest passenger train station(amtrack). Its pretty much impossible to live in many parts of america without a car unless you are relying on family/friends to drive you places.

I found the article a bit bias since here in the USA we are a car dependent society and view the automobile as the primary means of getting about. I am slightly upset because the author comes off as orrogant as if everyone should be driving instead of using the "stupid bike or subway."
Articles like that are usually a bit over the top to get the attention. The author explains herself more in this blog article:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/rethinking-silly-car-trips/?scp=2

Not having a car automatically limits your non-commute mobility. Some are willing to compromise that for the money, some are note.

I doubt it exist any metropolitan area in the Western developed world that has a 24/7 transit system providing access to all areas with a transit facility (from a bus stop to a train mega station) within, say, 500m of ANY building and capable of shifting you in rational routes any time, day, night, holidays, providing less then 10min waiting time to start a trip or to wait for any connection. Am I wrong?

Actually, the Western world is much better than the Eastern world as far as night commutes go on the whole - look at Japanese cities and their late night transport. It barely exists.

As for 24/7 connectivity, there are few places that can't be reached with night buses in many cities including Stockholm where a network of night buses covers nearly all of the city to a minimum frequency of 30 minutes with some running every 15 minutes. How much do you seriously expect though? Every 30 minutes after midnight is a good service frequency! It's not that inconvenient to plan a little to make your connection...

You refused to address my point about alcohol and driving and the freedom problems that causes. If you are complaining about having to walk a little and having a schedule, how about things like alcohol and parking in clubbing districts.

Even in London, with its big network of night buses, there are many areas not served by them, there are many areas where one is supposed to walk more than 3 MILES to get to them, and if you want to make trips not starting/ending in the central area, it might well take you 3 hours to travel between two neighborhoods a mere 10km apart on the road network.

It isn't that bad that's for sure. Sure, some more remote areas of London might have a walk to get to a night bus stop, but goodness me, is it really that bad to have to walk a little way?

The question is not only is a place is reachable, but how easily. A national park with 4 buses a day is reachable, but it requires scheduled trips fit to 2 buses in the morning, 2 buses in the late afternoon (for instance). If you want just to stay couple hours? You're out of luck: no buses to remote hiking trail start point each 10 minutes, while a car gives you instant access anywhere there is a road.

Yes, it requires a little more planning, but who the heck wants to go all the way to a National Park and only stay for a couple of hours anyway? Normally people plan a day trip to a place like that, and often schedules reflect that. For someone who likes rigidity and rules, you don't like living by a schedule in any way, shape or form do you?

One issue often missed by those advocating large-scale majority use of transit is that its costs are high. In Europe, only London are recovers more than 80% of transit OPERATING costs via fare collection, excluding capital costs and services operated on National Rail tracks.

Let's take the example of Paris: despite its wide coverage, fares cover only 46% of total costs. 38% are funded with an outrageous*, populist* 2,8% salary tax on people living there, with the remaining being funded by handouts from the national and city governments. Even so, transit counts for 36% of all passenger*km in the region.

So, if one would think about raising transit use to - say - 60% of all pax*km, one would have to find more money, other than fares. That would mean raising the salary tax (as people that drive in PAris also pay that tax) or other taxes.

The paradox applies to virtually every major European city: if more people were to use transit (whose limits of capacity are usually bound to peak offer, hence empty seat buses Saturday 5pm are not that relevant...), there would be needed more money to cover its financial losses, which would mean higher fares.

*I define such taxes as outrageous because they imply charging people according to their salaries for a service whose costs are highly unrelated to income or wealth. Transportation is not a basic right like education or health care or public safety that should be available for anyone regardless of ability to pay, in an equitable basis. When, as in the case of Paris, instead of charging 80% more for fares but instituting a salary tax to fund transportation, the authorities are throwing demagoguery on those with higher salaries, making them subsidy low-earners commute, instead of having all passengers paying the same fare regardless of how much they earn or how much disposable income they have.

People pay for roads through their taxation whether they use them for vehicles or not. Sure, there are motorist specific charges, however, roading infrastructure is often also funded by local council rates and property taxes too. In New Zealand, 22-25% of all council rates goes towards road maintenance and improvement. This is paid by motorists and non-motorists alike.

Even in London, with its big network of night buses, there are many areas not served by them, there are many areas where one is supposed to walk more than 3 MILES to get to them, and if you want to make trips not starting/ending in the central area, it might well take you 3 hours to travel between two neighborhoods a mere 10km apart on the road network.


I thinks its not that bad.. just in any remote area we need to walk more than 3 mileshttp://freeimagestocks.com/content/66/grey.png

As for 24/7 connectivity, there are few places that can't be reached with night buses in many cities including Stockholm where a network of night buses covers nearly all of the city to a minimum frequency of 30 minutes with some running every 15 minutes. How much do you seriously expect though? Every 30 minutes after midnight is a good service frequency! It's not that inconvenient to plan a little to make your connection...

30-minute frequency is too much, usually longer than what it would take to drive between those two points. And that is excluding the time it takes to walk to/from your place.
You refused to address my point about alcohol and driving and the freedom problems that causes. If you are complaining about having to walk a little and having a schedule, how about things like alcohol and parking in clubbing districts.

Simple:
(1) designate driver
(2) separate day/night street parking regulations

I"m all in favor of zero tolerance for alcohol (or other drugs) behind the wheel.

It isn't that bad that's for sure. Sure, some more remote areas of London might have a walk to get to a night bus stop, but goodness me, is it really that bad to have to walk a little way?

One mile is not "a little way". It takes a healthy person walking on a fast pace 16-21 minutes to walk one mile on flat terrain. Now, if the person is a woman, what about doing that on high heels? And what about the fact streets are much more dangerous at night, especially in a place like London with its knife crime epidemic?

Yes, it requires a little more planning, but who the heck wants to go all the way to a National Park and only stay for a couple of hours anyway? Normally people plan a day trip to a place like that, and often schedules reflect that. For someone who likes rigidity and rules, you don't like living by a schedule in any way, shape or form do you?

The question I wanted to point is that in all those situations not concerning commuting, to have a car is to massively increase your freedom. So policies aiming at making the car "unnecessary for living" automatically imply changing mobility expectations for the worse.

30-minute frequency is too much, usually longer than what it would take to drive between those two points. And that is excluding the time it takes to walk to/from your place.

Is your time THAT important at 3:00am when coming home from a club? Having a nice walk and relaxed journey home after a night out is something I like.

Simple:
(1) designate driver
(2) separate day/night street parking regulations

I"m all in favor of zero tolerance for alcohol (or other drugs) behind the wheel.

Right, so you're okay with missing out on having a good night out and having to sit on the sidelines just so you can be a driver rather than all be able to have a good night out together and wait perhaps 20 minutes for a bus (and have a bit of a walk at the end)?

One mile is not "a little way". It takes a healthy person walking on a fast pace 16-21 minutes to walk one mile on flat terrain. Now, if the person is a woman, what about doing that on high heels? And what about the fact streets are much more dangerous at night, especially in a place like London with its knife crime epidemic?

Oh for goodness sake, knife crime is confined to certain parts of London, and not only that but primarily associated with youth gangs. Crime in London isn't that bad, but if you want to be paranoid then that is your choice. I'd rather "take my chances" walking at night than driving given the greater likelihood of being involved in an accident.

The question I wanted to point is that in all those situations not concerning commuting, to have a car is to massively increase your freedom. So policies aiming at making the car "unnecessary for living" automatically imply changing mobility expectations for the worse.

I've visited plenty of national parks and have never once rented a car anywhere I have travelled around the world. Not once did I feel confined or restricted. I don't think it is changing mobility expectations for the worse at all, it just requires a little more foresight than with a car.

^^It is also an option to own a car and not use it in the city. The article is about discouraging the use of cars in central cities.

I live pretty centrally in Amsterdam. Amsterdam discourages people visiting the city by car, but if you live there, parking in your own neighborhood is easy and affordable.

I own a car for visiting relatives, going out to nature, going on weekend trips, getting crap at the hardware store, etc. But I still support the anti-car use policies in cities. I get my groceries on foot, travel mostly by bike in the city, and by train to other cities nearby.

I've been in many places in the world, and in general I can only say that in my opinion there is a reverse correlation between car friendliness and people friendliness. The more accommodating a place is for cars, the less fun it is to 'be' as a person.

This is more to do with the fact that the UK privatised its entire transport network and this has completely shafted commuters. If one were to use an example from the rest of the world, this would certainly not be the case. Also, unless you are crossing city borders, I am surprised to see you need two different passes for each bus - the PTE's should each have their own commuter passes.

I don't live in a city, so I go from one town to another. Each town had its own bus system, and the rail system is independent of them both.


It's like I said in the earlier post, transit networks work very well in big cities where the numbers justify extensive routes, but work less well is less densely populated areas.

I don't live in a city, so I go from one town to another. Each town had its own bus system, and the rail system is independent of them both.


It's like I said in the earlier post, transit networks work very well in big cities where the numbers justify extensive routes, but work less well is less densely populated areas.

This can be answered by using the German, Dutch or Swedish systems where regional tariff areas are very large often covering multiple cities which allows better seamless connections across the areas. Sometimes there are also tickets that cover multiple areas too for example the commuter passes that cover both SL (for the whole of Stockholm county) and UL (for the whole of the UL zone which includes cities like Uppsala). This gets around the problem that you encounter.

Public transport...
I'd need to take two buses, which are £46 and £52 for a monthly ticket.
The train would be £93 for a monthly pass.

Total £191.

I can drive in to work in 25 minutes usually. By public transport I need to leave a whole hour earlier.

If you can drive to work in 25 minutes I'm thinking it must be something like 15 miles?

Those public transport costs seem extortionate for a journey of that length, are there not combined bus and train tickets that work out much cheaper?

My commute to work ends up with a completely different calculation. It's three times that length, 47 miles each way, and the cost of the train season ticket works out at £148.50 per month.

If I were to buy a cheap car to do that journey I'd be looking at monthly costs of:

Car cost, say buy for £6000, sell for £2000 after 5 years = £66 depreciation.

Lost interest on £6000 @ 2% = £10

Petrol, 1800 miles a month @ 40mpg, £1.30/l = £265

Insurance = £25

Servicing/MOT/repairs etc = £35

Road tax = £15

Miscellaneous = £10

I would choose free parking which would mean walking the last half mile to work.

Total = £426

So, prohibitively more expensive than public transport, not really even an option.

For people who use a car infrequently, maybe once or twice a week to go shopping or visit friends etc, there is the option of commercial car sharing businesses which have cars stationed around urban areas for use by their members at an hourly rate from about £4 plus £0.20 per mile to cover fuel and other marginal costs.

It works out much cheaper than ownership for low mileage drivers.

I don't live in a city, so I go from one town to another. Each town had its own bus system, and the rail system is independent of them both.

For such cases we started to have Transport and Tariff Association back in the 1990 called ZVV.

44 independent companies in the metropolitan area now share the same ticketing system, based on zones.

If you can drive to work in 25 minutes I'm thinking it must be something like 15 miles?

Those public transport costs seem extortionate for a journey of that length, are there not combined bus and train tickets that work out much cheaper?


There aren't. It's not just about cost though. The time is a consideration.

As I said, I can leave at 8.35 and be in by 9.

By public transport I'd have to catch a bus at about 7.45, a train at 8.20, then another bus at the other end which, if I'm lucky, would get me there by 9.

It's the same story coming back, where I can choose to either be home by 6-6.15, or 6.45-7pm.

mobility is a basic need, whichever mode of transport you use, whether you're a college student using the bus, a long-distance train commuter, a white-collar worker commuting by car or a sportive person using the bicycle.

It is just one basic needs out of many. Car enthusiasts make the mistake to optimize that one need at the cost of many other basic needs. Which leads in the worst case to the situation you find nowadays in "optimized" cites like Cincinnati where you have lots of highway options through the very centre. The problem is only that few reasons are left to go there. Most people are just on their way through.


Does the quality of live increase when traffic counts are down by 10 or 20%, but it is still congested because there is a lane less, ...

Yes. The Guertel in Vienna, the most trafficked road in Vienna which is not an Autobahn or other crossing free roads, had a slight decrease in traffic over the last ten years. At the same time pedestrian and bike infrastructure were improved. The area had been pushed by other means of urban planning as well, non of them were with the aim of pushing car traffic. The result was that the Guertel was one of the worst areas of Vienna, an urban failure. Nowadays it is almost an urban success story.

Another example is the main shopping street Mariahilferstraße. It is always congested on its one line for each direction. Because two lanes were handed over to the pedestrians. Now you find there large trees, which means you enjoy shadow all along the way, bars and restaurants with seats on the street, large masses of pedestrians ... a great place to be. With two more lanes for cars, there would be none of that because than there would be no space for it.


or there is less parking space? Does the quality of live in your street improve if there are not 25 cars, but 21 cars parked?

Yes. 2 parking lots are already enough space for a guest garden of a restaurant or bar. You see them popping up all around Vienna. They do wonders to increase the quality of life in the large dense parts of Vienna. For slightly more parking lots you can fill the whole street with trees. This is done slowly, because of car driver opposition, but it makes the difference between a grey concrete canyon which dramatically overheats during the summer and a green street with recognizable less heat during in summer.


Does it improve when the average commuting time increases? Motorized traffic is dozens of times cleaner than it ever was before.

Yes. Because many people will then move closer to the centre or closer to main arteries of public transportation. There are very clear time frames that the majority is ready to accept for commuting. If the time to commute is getting longer than the deadline, that is substantial motivation to move closer to the actual working place. That way, distances and as a direct consequence also traffic gets reduced.

Yes. Because many people will then move closer to the centre or closer to main arteries of public transportation. There are very clear time frames that the majority is ready to accept for commuting. If the time to commute is getting longer than the deadline, that is substantial motivation to move closer to the actual working place. That way, distances and as a direct consequence also traffic gets reduced.

If you can.
Here in Paris metropolitan area living close to transportation is almost a luxury, if you don't have a social housing and don't want to live in a slum.
(Average wait for a social housing : over 10 years).
Paris metropolitan area built every year two time less housing than necessary.

It is easy to say that people should live close their jobs but in practice it is really different.
It is not easy to find a good job and it is not easy to find a good house. We are often limited in our choise.
We should forget that households have often two people working.

Cases where people live very far of their work to ease the commute of their wife or husband are quite common in Paris area.

The problem with the pro-transit idea, in england at least, as that it's purely about being anti-car, rather than being pro-transit.


Same in France and especially in Paris.
This article say all

Paris cycle lanes 'will make life hell' for drivers
By Patrick Bishop in Paris
12:01AM BST 23 Aug 2001

A NEW revolution swept through Paris yesterday as draconian measures aimed at driving motorists off the road took effect.
"It's only by making life hell for motorists that we will force them to give up their cars," said Yves Contassot, the Green deputy mayor, who rides a bicycle.
...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1338303/Paris-cycle-lanes-will-make-life-hell-for-drivers.html

"It's only by making life hell for motorists that we will force them to give up their cars," said Yves Contassot, the Green deputy mayor

This is pure bigotry. He speaks as if it were immoral, or barely legal, to drive a car.

Yes. Because many people will then move closer to the centre or closer to main arteries of public transportation. There are very clear time frames that the majority is ready to accept for commuting. If the time to commute is getting longer than the deadline, that is substantial motivation to move closer to the actual working place. That way, distances and as a direct consequence also traffic gets reduced.

Wicked logic: you make a place less convenient to reach by car. Public transportation can take you from your house as fast as your car. Then, you make it so inconvenient for the car and people are forced to move closer to the place the work

How efficient is that? At the end of the day, you have someone with LESS accessibility, not more, measured in terms of the sq. km. or blocks he/she can reach within a certain "acceptable time". It looks like a plot to restrict the place of living so that people are almost coerced in living nearby their workplaces. Then you get less congestion. What is the sense on that? The quest for progress is more, and not less mobility. This argument is like those tiny minority wackos that are against short haul low-cost flights in UK alleging easy continental access has "destroyed the holiday beach resorts of England and Scotland, because they can't compete in terms of weather and scenic beauty with Mediterranean outposts in Spain or Italy, and if people had less access to cheap flights, they would rediscover local areas instead of buying homes in Benidorm".

Yes. 2 parking lots are already enough space for a guest garden of a restaurant or bar. You see them popping up all around Vienna. They do wonders to increase the quality of life in the large dense parts of Vienna.

Those are like tumor, like zips that pop out in our streets. Street is an infrastructure for TRANSPORTATION, be it on foot, bike, truck, moped, car... you can discuss the means of transportation, but a STREET is not a PLACE TO BE, but only a PLACE TO MOVE FROM POINT A => B.

Those appendages of buildings on streets are a complete disgrace, they remind me of Third-World cities where order and planning is lacking, and people take over the sidewalk or street selling everything. Restaurants and bars can use all the space they want - WITHIN the limits of their properties. Streets need to be clean, void of nuisances like tables, kiosks, food parlors. There is a reason why streets are public, and buildings are private. The less you have clueless people, cars, bikes in a street, the better efficient the system is in using them for TRANSPORTATION.

Why is this concept so difficult to gasp?

If you can.
Here in Paris metropolitan area living close to transportation is almost a luxury, if you don't have a social housing and don't want to live in a slum.
(Average wait for a social housing : over 10 years).
Paris metropolitan area built every year two time less housing than necessary.

It is easy to say that people should live close their jobs but in practice it is really different.
It is not easy to find a good job and it is not easy to find a good house. We are often limited in your choise.
We should forget that households have often two people working.

Cases where people live very far of their work to ease the commute of their wife or husband are quite common in Paris area.

You need a good city development scheme as well of course. Vienna is currently a rapidly growing city. Pretty much all large development sites are either in central locations (on former gray sites) or are well connected via subway to the centre. These developments all have a considerable share of affordable homes (but what is equally important it is a healthy mix, there are also plenty of more upscale apartments being built there)

Sure, living in more central locations is more expensive but here it is I dare to say still affordable. I don't have that in depth knowledge of other cities but here people definitely have a choice between suburbs and more central location.

At the end of the day, you have someone with LESS accessibility, not more, measured in terms of the sq. km. or blocks he/she can reach within a certain "acceptable time".

It is not an ill meant attempt to increase journey times just for fun. It is merely choosing priorities and the priority in dense inner cities is rather on other means of transportation than car (note, I am not talking about banning cars at all, just about priorities). This might slow down car traffic in fact.

You make the mistake of measuring freedom in "sq. km. or blocks he/she can reach within a certain "acceptable time"". I measure freedom "in amount of places of interest he/she can reach within a certain "acceptable time"".

It looks like a plot to restrict the place of living so that people are almost coerced in living nearby their workplaces. Then you get less congestion. What is the sense on that?
Less waste on empty kms. People who really want to live in the suburbs can still do so but it will be more expensive to manage to be in the centre in the same time and might include the use of PT.


The quest for progress is more, and not less mobility. This argument is like those tiny minority wackos that are against short haul low-cost flights in UK alleging easy continental access has "destroyed the holiday beach resorts of England and Scotland, because they can't compete in terms of weather and scenic beauty with Mediterranean outposts in Spain or Italy, and if people had less access to cheap flights, they would rediscover local areas instead of buying homes in Benidorm".

The time of dirt cheap energy is going to end within our life time. I am not apocalyptic at all, I am not talking about the end, merely saying it won't be that dirt cheap anymore but more expensive. As city structures take decades to change for the better or worse, it is reasonably to make sure already now that one does not end up in a country where distances are kept unnecessarily long.

Btw, English beach resorts are certainly having a come back eventually.


Those are like tumor, like zips that pop out in our streets. Street is an infrastructure for TRANSPORTATION, be it on foot, bike, truck, moped, car... you can discuss the means of transportation, but a STREET is not a PLACE TO BE, but only a PLACE TO MOVE FROM POINT A => B.

:nuts:
And I thought you support what the market demands? The market demands such guest gardens and the customers use it.


Those appendages of buildings on streets are a complete disgrace, they remind me of Third-World cities where order and planning is lacking, and people take over the sidewalk or street selling everything. Restaurants and bars can use all the space they want - WITHIN the limits of their properties. Streets need to be clean, void of nuisances like tables, kiosks, food parlors. There is a reason why streets are public, and buildings are private. The less you have clueless people, cars, bikes in a street, the better efficient the system is in using them for TRANSPORTATION.

Why is this concept so difficult to gasp?

Here goes the primate of streets must not being a place to be, only and exclusively a place to escape to somewhere else. Devoid of any life, with all possible services for pedestrians being outlawed. If you were to govern in Vienna it would be surely a terrible place to live in. Luckily you are no, nor someone of your school of thought.

Those are like tumor, like zips that pop out in our streets. Street is an infrastructure for TRANSPORTATION, be it on foot, bike, truck, moped, car... you can discuss the means of transportation, but a STREET is not a PLACE TO BE, but only a PLACE TO MOVE FROM POINT A => B.

Those appendages of buildings on streets are a complete disgrace, they remind me of Third-World cities where order and planning is lacking, and people take over the sidewalk or street selling everything. Restaurants and bars can use all the space they want - WITHIN the limits of their properties. Streets need to be clean, void of nuisances like tables, kiosks, food parlors. There is a reason why streets are public, and buildings are private. The less you have clueless people, cars, bikes in a street, the better efficient the system is in using them for TRANSPORTATION.

Why is this concept so difficult to gasp?

It's not a difficult concept at all. But I don't understand where you get the idea from that streets must only be used for transportation. It's sounds like utter nonsense to me, especially since you provide no real arguments to support your statements.

And yet, no matter how expensive and inconvenient it may be.. there certainly are no shortage of cars in Europe, are there? Motorways are packed.....

And yet, no matter how expensive and inconvenient it may be.. there certainly are no shortage of cars in Europe, are there? Motorways are packed.....

Yet despite this the AADT on most motorways is far below that of North American/Australian/New Zealand motorways especially relative to population density and the size of the respective cities that the motorways run through. The traffic in many cities and the modal split in nearly all cities eclipses those in the rest of the western world.

Perception of traffic is very different to reality, however, I can tell you from living in the new world and the UK that traffic is generally much worse in NZ cities than it is in English cities especially when you consider the much wider arterial roads/greater density of motorways here.

And yet, no matter how expensive and inconvenient it may be.. there certainly are no shortage of cars in Europe, are there? Motorways are packed.....

That's certainly true. People compensate for the high costs by buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars so that's not that big of an issue. And it's only inconvenient in city centers while it's very convenient compared to public transit everywhere else.
I also think private means of transportation are more pleasant, I prefer cycling over public transit for that reason, while others prefer driving.

In the end it all comes down to what kind of city you want. If you think streets are only for transportation then you might as well design them for cars. But in Europe streets are not regarded to be for transportation only by most people. Public transit enables better use of public space, which makes for a more pleasant city to live in. Even if using public transit itself is less pleasant for the individual than driving a car. It has collective benefits.

Street is an infrastructure for TRANSPORTATION, be it on foot, bike, truck, moped, car... you can discuss the means of transportation, but a STREET is not a PLACE TO BE, but only a PLACE TO MOVE FROM POINT A => B.

Those appendages of buildings on streets are a complete disgrace, they remind me of Third-World cities where order and planning is lacking, and people take over the sidewalk or street selling everything. Restaurants and bars can use all the space they want - WITHIN the limits of their properties. Streets need to be clean, void of nuisances like tables, kiosks, food parlors. There is a reason why streets are public, and buildings are private. The less you have clueless people, cars, bikes in a street, the better efficient the system is in using them for TRANSPORTATION.

Why is this concept so difficult to gasp?

It's not that people can't grasp what you are saying, they just don't agree with it. There is no real reason why as you claim a street should be solely for transportation, it's just an assertion of your opinion.
Many others have alternative opinions, I like a street with tables and chairs of cafes, some stalls selling stuff etc. It makes it more interesting.

You need a good city development scheme as well of course.
In Paris, this would means building high-rises in the inner city and building hundred of km of new subway/RER.
I am not against high-rises in inner Paris but unfortunately it is not the case for everybody.


Sure, living in more central locations is more expensive but here it is I dare to say still affordable. I don't have that in depth knowledge of other cities but here people definitely have a choice between suburbs and more central location.
In my inner suburb (Montrouge) a mid sized appartement (70m²) cost over half millon euro.
For a familly 70m² is small and for the average familly, half million euro is clearly out of range.

In Paris, most people don't chose to live far to public transportation.

In Paris, this would means building high-rises in the inner city and building hundred of km of new subway/RER.
I am not against high-rises in inner Paris but unfortunately it is not the case for everybody.

What is included in "inner Paris"? I think it is not necessary to build highrises in proper Paris where the old neighborhoods are located. But then I don't know how working places are distributed in the metropolitan region. I would expect it would be enough to build high rises in the inner banlieues. Preferably close to good PT connections. Additionally developing higher density developments along faster commuter lines would be an option as well. But this should be done in mixed purpose ways.

Paris certainly has several subcentres due to its size. If space is getting too rare one can certainly try to boost some areas to the status of new subcentres. Of course if just suburbian family homes with highways and some shopping centres are built with office towers in the middle of parking lot deserts instead, then you end up with the classical American style suburbia.


Regarding Vienna. I think for renting you can take 9€ per sqm and month as first guess. That would be in very central locations. If you want to have it cheaper you can choose not so asked for neighborhoods in the central districts, where you can have it for as little as 7€ per sqm and month. For about 200 000 € you should be able of finding a 70 sqm apartment in an inner district location if you are not out for the most expensive object. Sure, Vienna is not Paris but I think prices here are still rather ok for a 1.7 mio city which is also the capital of a wealthy EU member state.

Those appendages of buildings on streets are a complete disgrace, they remind me of Third-World cities where order and planning is lacking, and people take over the sidewalk or street selling everything. Restaurants and bars can use all the space they want - WITHIN the limits of their properties. Streets need to be clean, void of nuisances like tables, kiosks, food parlors. There is a reason why streets are public, and buildings are private. The less you have clueless people, cars, bikes in a street, the better efficient the system is in using them for TRANSPORTATION.

Why is this concept so difficult to gasp?

Sorry but to quote you from before, this sounds like total bigotry. You make it sound like it is immoral not to own a car. I would prefer a little more street life, it actually makes a city sounds like an exciting place to be and not devoid of life.(Like in this country) Also I laugh at the fact you make street life a "problem" and a "third world thing."

Total bigotry.

What is included in "inner Paris"? I think it is not necessary to build highrises in proper Paris where the old neighborhoods are located. But then I don't know how working places are distributed in the metropolitan region. I would expect it would be enough to build high rises in the inner banlieues. Preferably close to good PT connections. Additionally developing higher density developments along faster commuter lines would be an option as well. But this should be done in mixed purpose ways.


By inner city, I mean Paris proper where where the old neighborhoods are located. If we want a good development with public transportation we don't have other choise.

There are only two way to really decrease the number of cars in central Paris:
-Excluding the majority of population
-Building more and taller to reduce to distance between employement and housing and increasing the accessiblity of most jobs.

Actually Delanoë (inner Paris mayor) prefer the first solution, it is not only the poor that are excluded of inner Paris, it is also most of the middle class.
It is not surprising to see big riots in the bad suburbs.
Of course the first policy is also what tourists want. They could see the romantic wealthy old Paris like in their dreams.
Some believe that it will increase the economy but they should not forget that tourism represents only 3% of metropolitan GDP.

Sorry but to quote you from before, this sounds like total bigotry. You make it sound like it is immoral not to own a car. I would prefer a little more street life, it actually makes a city sounds like an exciting place to be and not devoid of life.(Like in this country) Also I laugh at the fact you make street life a "problem" and a "third world thing."


Have you ever spent part of your life in a Third World country (it is an honest question, not an irony/provocation)? I have, and it was there where I learnt to hate these overblown concepts of "street life" or "walkability" or "living urban scene" when I personally saw how much degradation, crime (1st person experience, not something I read about, one's perspective changes when one's whole family is held at the barrel of a gun) and lack or order these "total streets" b.s. are taken on steroids, to their extreme applications.

A random street in (choose a poor disorganized city in random developing country) will be "bustling with life", full of filthy street vendors, counterfeit merchandise carts selling on the fly, drug dealers operating with more or less discretion, sometimes shootings happen..

So, because I don't want Paris, or London, or Wien, to end like Bangalore, Accra, Brazzaville, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, La Paz or Ciudade del México, I loath all these schemes that see streets as a place to live and not a place to use, in rich(er) countries, for transportation (by car, tram, on foot, bike/motorbike/moped etc). Even worse, I hate urban planners that see people moving from point A to point B as "resources" that can be "managed" to create "atmosphere" on streets. They are as misguided as those that see graffitti as "free-mind art".

So any city that has streets that are used for other purposes than transportation will devolve into a third world city? :lol:

For the hundredth time, correlation does not equal causation. Have you ever considered that, perhaps instead of the large open markets or the crowded streets, crime is rampant in these cities because of the breakdown of law and order and the fact that people's first and foremost goals in some of these places is survival? Are you honestly going to tell me that there would be a complete breakdown of law and order in, say, New York City or Paris if parts of the core where there are a lot of residents and tourists were closed to cars or simply catered more toward bikes? That's absolutely absurd and you know it. For someone so vocal about the free market and freedom, you're a car fascist because you want to impose what your warped mind has concluded to be the "best" way of life (might I remind you that terms like best and worst are completely subjective in all respects) on everyone else. You're not giving people their right to freedom of choice if you rip out the bike lanes they use to commute to work or cancel the bus route that takes them to their first class at university: you're eliminating and impeding their freedom. On a more personal note, I am sorry to hear about the experience you and your family went through, and I know personal tragedy as well, but really, a therapist is worth the money in some instances (and I'm not trying to be mocking or hurtful here, I'm just being honest).

Have you ever spent part of your life in a Third World country (it is an honest question, not an irony/provocation)? I have, and it was there where I learnt to hate these overblown concepts of "street life" or "walkability" or "living urban scene" when I personally saw how much degradation, crime (1st person experience, not something I read about, one's perspective changes when one's whole family is held at the barrel of a gun) and lack or order these "total streets" b.s. are taken on steroids, to their extreme applications.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Not the part that 3rd world streets might be crime ridden, I am talking about the part that street life creates crime or that it is something directly connected with 3rd world life. Actually streets entirely devoid of street life are usually more dangerous places than streets where always some potential witnesses are around.

I don't know if you got your phobia of life worthy urbanity in these 3rd world countries but it is so incredibly misplaced in Europe. And I have not been to the 3rd world, but I live in Vienna and I have no friggin clue what you are talking about. I simply loose your line of argumentation when you equate new guest gardens of some restaurant instead of two parking lots with getting one step closer to Bangalore... :nuts:

By inner city, I mean Paris proper where where the old neighborhoods are located. If we want a good development with public transportation we don't have other choise.

There are only two way to really decrease the number of cars in central Paris:
-Excluding the majority of population
-Building more and taller to reduce to distance between employement and housing and increasing the accessiblity of most jobs.

Actually Delanoë (inner Paris mayor) prefer the first solution, it is not only the poor that are excluded of inner Paris, it is also most of the middle class.
It is not surprising to see big riots in the bad suburbs.
Of course the first policy is also what tourists want. They could see the romantic wealthy old Paris like in their dreams.
Some believe that it will increase the economy but they should not forget that tourism represents only 3% of metropolitan GDP.

What about other French cities? Is the situation better in terms of affordable housing build around transit?

H Even worse, I hate urban planners that see people moving from point A to point B as "resources" that can be "managed" to create "atmosphere" on streets. They are as misguided as those that see graffitti as "free-mind art".
I think you haven't really grasped the concept of an opinion.

What about other French cities? Is the situation better in terms of affordable housing build around transit?
Better because the other city are smaller.
The center areas are smaller and prices are lower.

The period when public transportation developed is not the same.
In Paris, it was on the early of the 20th century but in other big metropolis it was after the WW2.

Have you ever spent part of your life in a Third World country (it is an honest question, not an irony/provocation)? I have, and it was there where I learnt to hate these overblown concepts of "street life" or "walkability" or "living urban scene" when I personally saw how much degradation, crime (1st person experience, not something I read about, one's perspective changes when one's whole family is held at the barrel of a gun) and lack or order these "total streets" b.s. are taken on steroids, to their extreme applications.

A random street in (choose a poor disorganized city in random developing country) will be "bustling with life", full of filthy street vendors, counterfeit merchandise carts selling on the fly, drug dealers operating with more or less discretion, sometimes shootings happen..

So, because I don't want Paris, or London, or Wien, to end like Bangalore, Accra, Brazzaville, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, La Paz or Ciudade del México, I loath all these schemes that see streets as a place to live and not a place to use, in rich(er) countries, for transportation (by car, tram, on foot, bike/motorbike/moped etc). Even worse, I hate urban planners that see people moving from point A to point B as "resources" that can be "managed" to create "atmosphere" on streets. They are as misguided as those that see graffitti as "free-mind art".

Yes I have been to Mexico quite a few times and explored cities like Puerto Vallarta.

What you are doing is lumping "street life" with third world crime and other related problems which is total bigotry.

Wien is often named one of the safest cities in the world and is also mentioned when it comes to public transit and being walker friendly. Just because every city doesn't bend over for the motorists like you would please doesn't mean you can lash them out and ridicously compare them to 3rd world nations. Sorry but your theory of how poverty is linked to the "bad street planning" doesn't make a lick of sense and is laughable at best.

Having great street life doesn't equal to crime. Having inadequate public infrastructure, economic strength and access to basic needs like medicare leads to crime and poverty. None of which really apply to cities like Wien, in fact the opposite applies, Wien is a city that has thrived very well from good governance.

Having more streets open with shops and other stores can also lead to people not having to drive at all and getting what they need by foot or bike. In fact your theory seems to have a bias against those who can't afford a car. If anything your ideals seem to deprive people from getting to where they need to go and invoke poverty because of a servere transportation issues, such as not owning a car.

Examples can include Los Angeles and Houston for starters.

Better because the other city are smaller.
The center areas are smaller and prices are lower.

The period when public transportation developed is not the same.
In Paris, it was on the early of the 20th century but in other big metropolis it was after the WW2.

So TOD(transit orientated developments) is popular in Lyon, Lille, Marseille, Nantes etc than?

^^ It is popular in any large city of France. It is also the case of Paris but Paris is bigger, wider and more crowded. We cannot use the same solution for every cities.
Central Paris has heavier car traffic than any city center in France but Paris is by far the metropolitan area with the lowest ratio of commute by car in France.

According to the latest data published by the French statistical office, at the 2006 census the number of people whose main mean of transportation to work was their car was:
- Paris metropolitan area: 44.5%
- Lyon metropolitan area: 67.2%
- Strasbourg metropolitan area: 67.3%
- Nice metropolitan area: 68.1%
- Marseille metropolitan area: 70.1%
- Lille metropolitan area: 71.6%
- Montpellier metropolitan area: 73.5%
- Nantes metropolitan area: 73.6%
- Bordeaux metropolitan area: 75.6%
- Toulouse metropolitan area: 76.1%

Having great street life doesn't equal to crime. Having inadequate public infrastructure, economic strength and access to basic needs like medicare leads to crime and poverty..

a vibrant street-life often goes hand-in-hand with regeneration, making the area one of the most pleasant in any city, rather than the most crime-ridden as curiously stated above.

I do like the idea that a cafe putting some tables and chairs on the pavement will lead to drug dealers and pimps loitering by.

The town I live in, but never socialise in, has no street life in the town centre at all. It shuts at 5.30, and that's that. Crime is very low, it has to be said, but that's only because there's nobody there who could possibly be a victim of a crime in the evening.

Love my car, loathe public transport...

I came to this conclusion by being forced to use public transport in my younger days.

Public transport really is that crap

Sorry but your theory of how poverty is linked to the "bad street planning" doesn't make a lick of sense and is laughable at best.

Streets can accommodate a variety of TRANSPORTATION uses (that is more important than even which - if any - vehicles run there). If you have streets full of people, though, you get a problem: streets are free for most of it. So it is easier to have social degradation settling in. For instance: beggars are usually not allowed within a restaurant or club where there is a bouncer. So they don't even try. Likewise, illegal vendors of counterfeit merchandise will usually not stroll a 3-floor department store aisles. However, if you have people sit in coffee tables, they are not only taking space that is needed for transportation (in whatever form), obliging bikes, pedestrians and car to slow down, but also creating an environment in which you have - for instance - those annoying flower vendors, corner musicians, stoned/drunk beggars etc. which much increased "accessibility" to cause inconvenience.

Having more streets open with shops and other stores can also lead to people not having to drive at all and getting what they need by foot or bike. In fact your theory seems to have a bias against those who can't afford a car. If anything your ideals seem to deprive people from getting to where they need to go and invoke poverty because of a servere transportation issues, such as not owning a car.

If some transportation is run as a social program meant to copy with the needs of the extremely poor, the handicapped, those disqualified to drive because of DUI (though I have little sympathy left for them), school buses, I have nothing against it. But that is not really the issue here: you can have a place with transportation catering for part of commuters (especially subways or elevated railways, that I like and support, as they don't interfere with other traffic) without having, necessarily, the local restaurant using former parking places without paying the market price for that area to sit people.

I want poor people to stop being poor, but yet you can't make the condition of poverty deprived of consequences. What incentives will have people to work their a** out, day after day, if in addition to things I believe anyone should have guaranteed access like education, health care, public safety and basic housing they also have free transportation (or heavily subsidized), housing that is not only ok but superb, free art/music concerts, all kinds of welfare perks, etc? But that goes beyond the scope of this thread.

a vibrant street-life often goes hand-in-hand with regeneration, making the area one of the most pleasant in any city, rather than the most crime-ridden as curiously stated above.
Not necessarily. If you "street scene" is dominated by shoddy business, low-lives, gang-run premises, it will be dangerous. Sprawled places also make it harder for low-level gang criminal get a stronghold. Finally, as streets are opened, chances of underage drinking or minors involving with people/things they shouldn't be involved grow if they are reachable on foot from their homes, instead of miles and miles away requiring a ride the parents can refuse, or a cab ride they can't afford - for instance. Distance is a good deterrent for teenagers during their rebel years, and living in an exclusively residential area far from anything else is a way to, at least, get to know where and when your children are heading to (but this is again beyond the scope of this thread).

I didn't mean to say that all places with "live streets" will degrade, but presence of people using streets for purposes other than transportation (again: on foot, bicycle, cars, whatever) is a breeding ground for social decay if the seed of evil is there.

The town I live in, but never socialise in, has no street life in the town centre at all. It shuts at 5.30, and that's that. Crime is very low, it has to be said, but that's only because there's nobody there who could possibly be a victim of a crime in the evening.

You can have an indoor-base busy night scene without having people wandering aimless in the streets. What is the difference between going to a restaurant on foot or driving to a restaurant the next village 40km away, in the middle of nowhere? What counts is the food, the chef, the built environment, the service... Same for clubbing.

^^ It is popular in any large city of France. It is also the case of Paris but Paris is bigger, wider and more crowded. We cannot use the same solution for every cities.
Central Paris has heavier car traffic than any city center in France but Paris is by far the metropolitan area with the lowest ratio of commute by car in France.

If so, why the high percentage of people driving to work?

Streets can accommodate a variety of TRANSPORTATION uses (that is more important than even which - if any - vehicles run there). If you have streets full of people, though, you get a problem: streets are free for most of it. So it is easier to have social degradation settling in. For instance: beggars are usually not allowed within a restaurant or club where there is a bouncer. So they don't even try. Likewise, illegal vendors of counterfeit merchandise will usually not stroll a 3-floor department store aisles. However, if you have people sit in coffee tables, they are not only taking space that is needed for transportation (in whatever form), obliging bikes, pedestrians and car to slow down, but also creating an environment in which you have - for instance - those annoying flower vendors, corner musicians, stoned/drunk beggars etc. which much increased "accessibility" to cause inconvenience.

Ridiculous. Sometimes I wonder if you've ever been to a city at all, or if you just bend reality that much.

Of course there are beggars in Vienna (I have never seen a forged goods vendor anywhere however). But they are centered around areas where you'd also find tourists. Some can be found at subway station but there they won't approach you at all but simply sit there or play their music. What you oppose is not street life it is any "public" life. Do us a favor and limit yourself to gated communities, controlled shopping centres etc. then.

For the rest of us, we can enjoy street life. It is utter nonsense to suggest that with guest gardens come beggars, criminals and I don't know what else. This has nothing to do with reality here in Vienna. All you get with these things is a less hostile looking street scape and a street populated by more people. Regular everyday people, not beggars or criminals.


If some transportation is run as a social program meant to copy with the needs of the extremely poor, the handicapped, those disqualified to drive because of DUI (though I have little sympathy left for them), school buses, I have nothing against it. But that is not really the issue here: you can have a place with transportation catering for part of commuters (especially subways or elevated railways, that I like and support, as they don't interfere with other traffic) without having, necessarily, the local restaurant using former parking places without paying the market price for that area to sit people.

The restaurants have to do red tape and rent that space. But why should they be obliged to pay more for that space than two continuously parking cars there? Your market argument is nonsense because they pay market prices. It is you who wants to forbid this for nothing more than your personal opinion, which is a pretty extreme minority opinion hard to find to that incredible extend a second time. Admit it, it is you who is against letting the market work here, not the others.

Suburbanist is only trying to justify his existing opinions. And his fear of cities seems to be based on an unfortunate trauma...a bad thing, but something to solve with counseling and maybe the gym, not by organizing cities to avoid people.

If so, why the high percentage of people driving to work?
Because of the low number of jobs in the center in other french cities.
Paris still has a lot of employement in the city center where mass transit are concentred.
There is more jobs than inhabitants in central Paris, it is different in other cities where inhabitants far outnumber job.

If we compare the 1st arrondissement of Paris, Lyon and Marseille.

Paris
-1.8 km²
-17,440 inhabitants
-58,389 jobs
(PS: The Louvre and Tuilerie garden cover a large part of the arrondissement)

Lyon
-1.5 km²
-28,110 inhabitants
-15,507 jobs
(no park)

Marseille
-1.8 km²
-40,606 inhabitants
-21 048 jobs
(no park)

Commuting to the central area is often possible by public transportation but commuting to suburbs is very difficult without a car.
Add to this fact that other french don't have any efficient suburban network.

I see. Well, I hope authorities encourage jobs to be located near transit and improve suburban rail systems.

I see. Well, I hope authorities encourage jobs to be located near transit and improve suburban rail systems.

It is difficult to retrofit areas full of listed buildings to serve as modern commercial or office spaces for large employers. At least, more difficult than retrofit them for improved housing.

There is also a question of mismatch of jobs and place who live in the same area, and that is usually unmanageable.

I see. Well, I hope authorities encourage jobs to be located near transit and improve suburban rail systems.
^^ But if it is difficult to build in areas where transportations are located, this become complicated.
This doesn't pose so much problem outside Paris because city centers are smaller.
Jobs are in car dependant suburbs but distance are lower and it is not complicated to build a tramway line to serve an employement center.

Paris is a bigger city with much more people, larger distance and it needs much more capacity.
Building a tramway in Lyon is like building a metro in Paris but building a metro take much more time and cost a lot more than a tramway.
Any new line planned today will not open before 2020.
Ten years this is 800,000 more inhabitants in Paris area.

As I said earlier, it is not one new subway line that Paris needs, it is several hundred new kilometers of metro/RER and suburban train.
Include the renovation and upgrating of the existing system. One billion euro for a single line of RER.

That's why a proper development with public transportation in Paris means building high-rises in the inner city.

Streets can accommodate a variety of TRANSPORTATION uses (that is more important than even which - if any - vehicles run there). If you have streets full of people, though, you get a problem: streets are free for most of it. So it is easier to have social degradation settling in. For instance: beggars are usually not allowed within a restaurant or club where there is a bouncer. So they don't even try. Likewise, illegal vendors of counterfeit merchandise will usually not stroll a 3-floor department store aisles. However, if you have people sit in coffee tables, they are not only taking space that is needed for transportation (in whatever form), obliging bikes, pedestrians and car to slow down, but also creating an environment in which you have - for instance - those annoying flower vendors, corner musicians, stoned/drunk beggars etc. which much increased "accessibility" to cause inconvenience.

Sorry but now you just come off as a massive elitist.

That's why a proper development with public transportation in Paris means building high-rises in the inner city.

Haven't then ruled out that since the rise of Tour Montparnasse? Haven't they come with a plan for a massive big outer circle subway line or smth?

Sorry but now you just come off as a massive elitist.

Does any city have to be accommodating of beggars, illegal street sellers and so? I think social programs aimed to take people out of those situation need to be in place.

Does any city have to be accommodating of beggars, illegal street sellers and so? I think social programs aimed to take people out of those situation need to be in place.

We have been over this a million times.

You make no sense, building areas for better street life isn't meant to accommodate beggars, illegal street sellers and any other things you will dish out. It is meant to improve the area and bring decent interest to it.

People like interesting things, crowded areas of shops, bars and cafes are interesting and full of interesting people.

Just because you might see a beggar or two in a crowded area ruins it for you? Are you that devoid of life?

Again, sorry but you sound like a dull person.

^^ But if it is difficult to build in areas where transportations are located, this become complicated.
This doesn't pose so much problem outside Paris because city centers are smaller.

Paris seems to be very special in this respect. Because its old town is huge and largely protected. Vienna does have pretty big pre-automobile core as well, after all it was one of the largest cities in the world 100 years back. But only a smaller share of that area is protected as a whole. Office space is developed not only in periphery clusters (which are mostly connected by subway, there is only one example of a planning failure) but also in central places around railway hubs. The industries are naturally mostly in peripheral locations but still within city limits. It can be a bit more challenging to reach them by PT but you should have at least a bus going there, some places also have subway or S-Bahn connections.

Jobs are in car dependant suburbs but distance are lower and it is not complicated to build a tramway line to serve an employement center.


Paris is a bigger city with much more people, larger distance and it needs much more capacity.
Building a tramway in Lyon is like building a metro in Paris but building a metro take much more time and cost a lot more than a tramway.
Any new line planned today will not open before 2020.
Ten years this is 800,000 more inhabitants in Paris area.

As I said earlier, it is not one new subway line that Paris needs, it is several hundred new kilometers of metro/RER and suburban train.
Include the renovation and upgrating of the existing system. One billion euro for a single line of RER.

That's why a proper development with public transportation in Paris means building high-rises in the inner city.

Your arguments make sense but I would limit it to areas outside of the most inner districts, where the most valuable historic treasures are found. It would be cool if one could build highrises that integrate in the lower levels into existing Haussmann facades.

^^ Office space is developed in the old city, there is a lot of jobs in central Paris (the only city with more jobs in its central area in Western Europe is London) but it is not enouth when we see how is organised the urban transportation.

Paris is different of many european city because of Haussmann.
In Paris on average, road are wider in the center than in suburbs.
The few big roads in suburbs are main highways linking to the center and freeways.

Not necessarily. If you "street scene" is dominated by shoddy business, low-lives, gang-run premises, it will be dangerous. Sprawled places also make it harder for low-level gang criminal get a stronghold.

Do many gangsters run cafes?

I mean, do you really look at this photo...

http://brusselsdailyphoto.blogspot.com/
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_47qJOuL4R0Y/RizaeS7K8NI/AAAAAAAAAH8/nMOeD6n0UJQ/s400/DSC06837.JPG

...and recoil in horror and the dangerous gang-related activity going on, wishing those cafes could be shut and the street just used for cars instead?



I didn't mean to say that all places with "live streets" will degrade, but presence of people using streets for purposes other than transportation (again: on foot, bicycle, cars, whatever) is a breeding ground for social decay if the seed of evil is there.

The problem is you see seeds of evil everywhere that isn't sanitised to the nth degree.


You can have an indoor-base busy night scene without having people wandering aimless in the streets. What is the difference between going to a restaurant on foot or driving to a restaurant the next village 40km away, in the middle of nowhere?

well, it'd take you ages to get there, and you wouldn't be able to drink if you had to drive there for a start.

What counts is the food, the chef, the built environment, the service... Same for clubbing.
For one thing, choice. A restaurant district like the one above will generally have a large variety of independently run cafes and bars, offering a range of experiences and menus.

Go to a retail park and you get exactly the same chain restaurants that you get at every other retail park. OK, I can imagine some people would rather go to somewhere that has a TGIs and a Frankie & Benny's as they'd know what they are getting, but some do enjoy the choice. Street cafe type places also have a much better atmosphere about them, unless of course you actually prefer the Frankie and Benny ambience.

I didn't mean to say that all places with "live streets" will degrade, but presence of people using streets for purposes other than transportation (again: on foot, bicycle, cars, whatever) is a breeding ground for social decay if the seed of evil is there.

You are right, finally I see it as well: The devil is lurking directly out of that picture!

http://www.1133.at/files/Bilder/2008-03-26_Zorga/00000002860.jpg

For one thing, choice. A restaurant district like the one above will generally have a large variety of independently run cafes and bars, offering a range of experiences and menus.

Go to a retail park and you get exactly the same chain restaurants that you get at every other retail park. OK, I can imagine some people would rather go to somewhere that has a TGIs and a Frankie & Benny's as they'd know what they are getting, but some do enjoy the choice. Street cafe type places also have a much better atmosphere about them, unless of course you actually prefer the Frankie and Benny ambience.

One thing certain about chain restaurants is the consistency and good quality of food because of the strict health and sanitary standards mandated by the city at least here in the United States and for certain here in Vegas. In NV, we have the Southern Nevada Health District doing random inspections of restaurants all over the valley which keep the restaurant owners be it a chain or a sole proprietor at their best otherwise the restaurant can suffer the consequence for not adhering to the standards mandated.

As far as ambiance and atmosphere, chain restaurants can afford and can offer the same if not better than what a mom and pop operations can offer.

Thank god we don't have restaurant chains in Estonia...if you exclude fast food chains, of course.

As far as ambiance and atmosphere, chain restaurants can afford and can offer the same if not better than what a mom and pop operations can offer.

The problem may well be that you are comparing a chain restaurant on a strip mall with an similarly located independent reastaurant. In such cases, I doubt the independent place could be noticeably better.

Compare it to a city centre restaurant/bar district, and it's very different. I mean, who would actually want to sit outside at a TGI Fridays? The people in the pictures above aren't outside because there's no room indoors.


ps health inspectors don't have different health standards for independent places.

One thing certain about chain restaurants is the consistency and good quality of food because of the strict health and sanitary standards mandated by the city at least here in the United States and for certain here in Vegas. In NV, we have the Southern Nevada Health District doing random inspections of restaurants all over the valley which keep the restaurant owners be it a chain or a sole proprietor at their best otherwise the restaurant can suffer the consequence for not adhering to the standards mandated.

As far as ambiance and atmosphere, chain restaurants can afford and can offer the same if not better than what a mom and pop operations can offer.

Firstly, all eateries have the potential to be bad - chain or otherwise. There have been a number of cases where people have become ill due to poor practices by underpaid workers at chain fast food restaurants. Next, independent eateries are subjected to exactly the same sanitation checks as chain restaurants.

I like variety and innovation in my food, not something that could simply be transplanted from one eatery to another. I don't want consistancy, I want excitement and as long as the place is clean, I will happily try something new. It's what makes going out to eat exciting! Also, as far as street appeal goes, well, just look at those photographs above. There is no way that a chain restaurant with their highly sterilised interiors that are copied and pasted across multiple outlets can compete with individual restaurants.

Thank god we don't have restaurant chains in Estonia...if you exclude fast food chains, of course.

well, fast food chains are merely the lowest denominator of the lot. Regular restaurant chains are generally a step up; they vary from bland to excellent. Are there no companies in Estonia that have opened up more than one restaurant of the same name!!? :eek: that is a bit shocking; I would have thought every country in the industrialized world had some.

well, fast food chains are merely the lowest denominator of the lot. Regular restaurant chains are generally a step up; they vary from bland to excellent. Are there no companies in Estonia that have opened up more than one restaurant of the same name!!? :eek: that is a bit shocking; I would have thought every country in the industrialized world had some.
There are but usually the number of these is limited to 2-3 restaurants which I wouldn't really call a "chain".
There are also companies that own several restaurants but with different themes and brandings. Like the Estonian Sparkling Group ( www.sparkling.ee ) and its high end restaurants.

Sure, living in more central locations is more expensive but here it is I dare to say still affordable. I don't have that in depth knowledge of other cities but here people definitely have a choice between suburbs and more central location.
Yes, but Vienna city extends over 415 km² and contains 1.7 million people, whereas Paris city extends over only 87 km² and contains already 2.2 million people. If you take the 87 km² at the center of Vienna, there are only 850,000 people who live there. So central Paris with 2.2 million people is already completely full. The only way to add more people there would be to build skyscrapers, but the Greens are totally opposed to it (in fact they are even opposed to building 7 or 8-floor buildings in central Paris; in central Paris you can build only 6-floor buildings maximum).

So people have no choice but to live in the suburbs, and of course they need to use cars there.

Yes, but Vienna city extends over 415 km² and contains 1.7 million people, whereas Paris city extends over only 87 km² and contains already 2.2 million people. If you take the 87 km² at the center of Vienna, there are only 850,000 people who live there. So central Paris with 2.2 million people is already completely full. The only way to add more people there would be to build skyscrapers, but the Greens are totally opposed to it (in fact they are even opposed to building 7 or 8-floor buildings in central Paris; in central Paris you can build only 6-floor buildings maximum).

So people have no choice but to live in the suburbs, and of course they need to use cars there.

Well, there should still be a large capacity in Paris. After all, the city sustained nearly 3 million people until the late 1960s. Of course, the households at that time were larger, but with a little optimizing, I see potential for 2.5 million people.

Well, there should still be a large capacity in Paris. After all, the city sustained nearly 3 million people until the late 1960s.
The housing conditions back then were far worse than today. Nobody wants to go back living in crowded apartments as was the case back then!
I see potential for 2.5 million people.
That would be only 300,000 more people than today, which corresponds to only 4 years of population growth in Greater Paris.

Besides, the Métro network in central Paris couldn't cope with 300,000 more people. Métro trains are full.

The problem is for 30 years the authorities in Paris have behaved as if the city wasn't growing anymore, they have relied on the infrastructures developped by de Gaulle-Pompidou in the 1960s, and now there are probably 2 million people too many for the infrastructures we have. It will take 30 years to repair this catastrophic lack of discernment and planning. Unfortunately no political leader in Paris seems to realize just how bad the situation is (of course, the political leaders are rich, so they live in the very center of the city, close to the palaces where they work, and they have cars with chauffeurs, so they are as disconnected from the life of the ordinary 12 million Parisians as were the aristocrats back in 1789). So I think in 30 years the situation in Paris will probably be even more hellish than what it is now.

And I won't even talk about the Khmers Verts (Green Khmers) that we have here who pollute just about any debate about infrastructure in Paris.

The only thing that could force the politicians here to wake up would be some mega suburb riots several times the magnitude of 2005. I predict lots of White people will join in the riots this time. People are exasperated.

^^ Wow, I had no idea there were such problems with transportation in Paris. I've always though that it has a rather extensive railway system.

Firstly, all eateries have the potential to be bad - chain or otherwise. There have been a number of cases where people have become ill due to poor practices by underpaid workers at chain fast food restaurants. Next, independent eateries are subjected to exactly the same sanitation checks as chain restaurants.

I like variety and innovation in my food, not something that could simply be transplanted from one eatery to another. I don't want consistancy, I want excitement and as long as the place is clean, I will happily try something new. It's what makes going out to eat exciting! Also, as far as street appeal goes, well, just look at those photographs above. There is no way that a chain restaurant with their highly sterilised interiors that are copied and pasted across multiple outlets can compete with individual restaurants.

I want good quality and consistent food regardless if its coming from an independent restaurant or a chain. A restaurant chain and Im not talking about burger joints here consistently can deliver quality food. The menu on offer changes depending on the season, aside from the set menu there are board specials that are not listed on the menu usually offered on a daily basis so it will not always be the same for the life of the business.

To say chain restaurants offer the same bland food while indepently owned restaurant has better food is simply not true. Regarding atmosphere of dining whether indoors or al fresco, you must not have seen what is on offer here in Vegas. I know for a fact we have a great restaurant scene here in Vegas whether you prefer the chain or celebrity chef owned restaurants. Same thing in California if not even better.

Isn't the French government going to built 125 miles/201 km of new new metros in Paris metropolitan area?
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/05/27/paris-region-moves-ahead-with-125-miles-of-new-metro-lines/

Isn't the French government going to built 125 miles/201 km of new new metros in Paris metropolitan area?
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/05/27/paris-region-moves-ahead-with-125-miles-of-new-metro-lines/
That's not enough. By the time they open, 10, 15, 20 years from now, there will be 1 million more people living in Greater Paris already. What's needed to solve the transport situation is several hundreds of km of new métro lines, and also several new motorways. Short of this, the situation will remain chaotic. With what they propose, if it gets built, the patient won't drown, but he will still be struggling in the middle of the water.

This might be a stupid question, but has Paris ever considered grade-separating more of its boulevards using tunnels or trenches? Induced demand would fill it all back up though. Whatever, it sounds like a terrible place to live despite being pretty.

Maybe the real solution, if they are going to restrict new residential development, is restrict employment in the city center as well.

That's not enough. By the time they open, 10, 15, 20 years from now, there will be 1 million more people living in Greater Paris already. What's needed to solve the transport situation is several hundreds of km of new métro lines, and also several new motorways. Short of this, the situation will remain chaotic. With what they propose, if it gets built, the patient won't drown, but he will still be struggling in the middle of the water.

Jeez, 201 km of new metro lines is not enough?

It appears to me that apart from the line 14 extension this is mostly about connecting the inner banlieues with each other rather than with the centre. But maybe this is a good idea as the connection to centre is established already by many RER lines but there seems to be a complete lack of high profile connection between the banlieus

The situation in Paris is the same as in London. We're paying big time for not investing in our transport network (as a whole, so including roads) enough for 30 years between the late 60s and end of the 90s. Now we're spending 10s of billions on the existing network (new rolling stock, signaling systems, track, etc), crossrail and thameslink (rer system), DLR, bus expansion, orbital rail, yet it is not enough, because the city alone grew by over 800k over the last decade, and 100s of thousands more in the vast metro region known as the commuter belt. By 2020 (when all current projects are suppose to be done) capacity will have increased by almost 50% on levels at the start of last decade. An enormous increase considering the capacity the city already had with well over 500km of rail and tube lines alone. Yet, it won't be sufficient for future needs.