Norway's capital is the latest city to declare war on cars
economist.com
economist.com
Buses are ok, not always according to schedule but so frequent during the day it hardly matters to me.
Trains are a bit of both:
- most regional ones are brand new
- the other aren't to bad either: old fashioned but clean and well maintained. In fact a number of commuters prefer the older ones.
- they are expensive (if you teamed up with three others you'd finance a Tesla in 10 years I guess. The downside is you can't expect everyone to go to work and home at the exact same time every day or even stay in their job for ten years)
- while they might be reasonably precise for weeks on end it is never a surprise when they are delayed.
- information is poor (my guess is because they have to pay alternative transport if they are more than 30 minutes delayed so they'll try to avoid announcing delays as long as possible. Again this is just my guess.)
- the commuter trains are always crowded in the Oslo area. Sometimes they are so crowded you literally cannot move around. Having seen and read about stadium fires and other disasters involving crowds I wonder how this is even allowed.
Are you really implying that in these countries many people use bikes because the public transport is not good enough ? In Spain nobody (?) uses bikes because the public transport is perfect ? Do you have sources for both or is this just your very subjective opinion ?
Isn't that just a logistical issue though? If it snows, suddenly a huge area is affected. You would need an unreasonable fleet of cleaners to clear all pathways in time. I think they can only concentrate on the main roads, most "car" roads aren't cleared, too. But I may be off here, are there cities that clear all bike lanes?
I'm in Munich too btw., I think the bike infrastructure is pretty okay (try biking in Stuttgart)? I rarely use public transport, its just too slow and inflexible. I also don't think it can be improved to a point where it can reasonably compete with biking. And thats ok, biking is fine. Just take the bike, its more fun and healthy anyway.
So I tend to agree. Public transport is good as long as your work is in the city center, but all the big employers are in a small radius around the city and hard to reach.
While in part that was because of a public transport system that was inferior to my current city (Hamburg), I would still prefer better biking infrastructure over public transport.
I'm not implying that good public transport is bad, but more bikers is definitely not caused by lack of good public transport.
I experienced the public transport system in Denmark largely as exceptionally reliable, at least in the cities. Where have you made different experiences?
The reason many people in copenhagen (and other danish cities, but none comes close to copenhagen) use bikes is that the biking infrastructure is just also exceptional.
For germany the story is indeed different (though just both - public transport and biking infra - are much worse).
I very highly doubt your narrative that biking somehow is only popular because of insufficient public transport.
My commute takes 17min by bike and 26 by subway, due to the stops, during rush hour. The same journey takes well over 50 min with car during that time.
i don’t take the bike over the subway because the subway is bad I take it because it is the fastest way to get there.
I know several people living in Oslo even with 3 kids not needing a car. But on the other hand this is only true for Oslo in Norway. Every other city/town public transport sucks. Cars are a must in all other cities.
Which is great but that is nothing compared to all the oil that is exported. I get that they can’t immediately stop producing oil. but they are also not slowing and also exploring new deposits.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-oil-idUSKCN1QV1OX
> Late last year, the government removed some 700 parking spaces from the city centre, replacing them with benches, bicycle docks and more pavement.
Great! The average parking space is 2*6 metres, so they've regained 8,400 sqm of public space!
Easy to reach that line by public transit.
Whatever comes out of these modern transformations might as well leave the city centers economically deserted, or at least less attractive to their current citizen.
While I never understood the urge to live in the cities, I do understand the call for more space and in particular less car traffic from those who do live there. But they also should understand that cities do come with downsides and there is no guarantee that you can have the cake and eat it.
The layout of many "cities" in the USA literally requires car transport. Residential is clustered with other residential, retail is clustered into strip malls with a vast stretches of asphalt (for parking), office parks are also clustered in low-density arrangements of flex-space (1-story buildings with a truck dock in the back). All of these places are separated not only by distances that can't be covered on foot, but also pedestrian-hostile highways and utter dismissal of public space.
And yes, schools are large and dotted across the landscape. So in addition to getting to work, by car, many families have to juggle transporting their kids to school in one direction, then go a completely different direction to get to work, repeat the process in the afternoon, and go in other directions for shopping, groceries, and other "third places".
All experience with cities that reduced or banned car traffic point in the other direction. Madrid for example reports a 9.5% increase in local business https://copenhagenize.eu/news-archive/2019/3/14/the-benefits...
If you’ve ever been to the Netherlands you’d also see that their city centers are far from deserted wastelands. Quite to the contrary, actually, at least the ones that I’ve been to.
> But they also should understand that cities do come with downsides and there is no guarantee that you can have the cake and eat it.
Living in the suburbs comes with downsides, too. There’s for example no inalienable right to drive your car in the city.
Plus you're completely ignoring public transport for some reason.
My urge to live in a city comes from the fact that I could get everything I need to live, by going out of my apatment for 30 minutes and walking to few nearby shops. No car needed. And I can get to various interesting entertainment venues by hopping on a bus for a 15 minutes.
First of all, public transport is not individual travel. Neither the times nor the locations nor the cost are under your control. Bicycles are individual travel, and that is why they are so relevant in modern cities, but they are neither weather-independent, nor barrier-free, nor do they provide the same utility as a car. Funnliy enough, they seem to evolve pretty much the same way cars did here in Europe by getting ever larger and more capable.
I would not be surprised if bicycles would be the next piece of individual travel that's becoming unfashionable. IMO the problem cities have with cars is not the pollution, it's the individuality that they cannot deal with. Everything individual tends to become problematic with a high enough population density. Today's 2sqm parking lot might be tomorrow's 0.5sqm bicycle stand or next week's 10sqm individual bathroom. If there shall ever be an acceptable degree of individual space consumption in a city, that city needs to define a limit on population density. Somehow I doubt that any city will ever do that, though.
Acceptable to who? You?
https://www.tripsavvy.com/where-to-rent-and-ride-a-bike-in-h...
Other contemporary* cities should still implement more bike-friendly infrastructure. There's other goals which can be furthered by more people biking. Climate change and public health come to mind.
*we can worry about the problems of hyper-density when it's actually here. For most of the big western cities this is probably at least a few decades out.
I think we should actively work against hyper dense cities. Or at least have the citizens decide about how dense they want their city to become (but then they'll have to live with the consequences). Right now we are facing dense cities and try to somehow adjust the policies after the fact. That seems not ideal.
New developments emerge and we adjust our laws to deal with the new situation in a way that society sees fit. IMHO voting on something like maximum population density policies is way too abstract of a concept for people to even have an opinion about. If it were the opposite one might think we as humans have some kind of plan going into the future... ;)
Then cars are not individual travel as well. The only thing you control is time of departure (not arrival). You don't control locations because you are limited by availability of parking space. You don't control the cost because it's just a function of distance, gas prices, your car efficiency and time of travel.
Car fits you definition only if you have a parking outside of your flat and right at your destinations and there's no congestion. Even then you would not control the cost and time independently. I think your definition of individual travel is unreasonably restrictive.
> Bicycles are individual travel, and that is why they are so relevant in modern cities, but they are neither weather-independent, nor barrier-free, nor do they provide the same utility as a car.
And car in congested city does not provide same utility as a bicycle or subway. Car is not the ultimate mode of transport, just one of many, one overused and abused.
> IMO the problem cities have with cars is not the pollution
You should appreciate pollution. Recent studies show that even at 'safe' levels it significantly diminishes human intellectual capacity. This affects for example results of important exams in your life and harms your career as result of that.
Usually money is way better at limiting than any attempts at enforcing hard limits. You just need to price things right. If market doesn't get the price correctly to include environmental costs then you can always tweak things with tax.
For instance, the street I am on is one way and lined with these tin silver box things on either side. A fair bit of the traffic is playing the game of musical chairs, as it is driving round and round looking for a space to park.
If one side was made into a bike lane then that would be a huge bonus to cyclists who should be able to get into town rather than deflected out onto a horrid ring road.
When you count the cars and when you count the bikes being inconvenienced, you wonder how it would work if there was already a bike lane there, used by locals and people on commutes.
Would my neighbours be able to petition the council to close down the bike lane in order for them to park their SUV cars there? Nope, and they would not have the organisational ability to get together to petition the council to close down the bike lane.
As things stand the car owners have squatters rights. So there is no bike lane, just a continual stream of cyclists holding up traffic by riding slowly on the tarmac remaining between the walls of steel each side of the road. Or there are cyclists bombing down the pavement (sidewalk) to piss off pedestrians. All because some people have a god given right to park their SUVs.
So unless there is some revolution the only way to reclaim such space is with a council that sneakily reclaims the spaces. One way this could be done is to mandate more clear road by side junctions for 'safety reasons'. This would benefit motorists as they could see better around the corners. So nobody could object to that. Next, do the same around private drive-ways that join the road, put more double yellow lines down. Then, when there are only a few spots left to park in the council could push the big idea and get a decent cycle lane in so 'kids could safely cycle to school'.
> Region’s likely new president Isabel Díaz Ayuso believes congestion is part of city’s cultural identity
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/may/31/madrid-set-to...
you win some, you lose some.
Note that the regression is still not implemented, so you can still go and enjoy it before they ruin it.
That being said, I don't know you so of course I don't known how important cars and driving is to you. But in general I would recommend not bringing a car to Oslo unless you have a good reason to bring it. Even if you have a lot of luggage you should have no significant problem transporting it on the train from the airport outside of Oslo on the train and then bring it to the hotel or wherever you are staying by jumping on to a bus for example.
"War on cars" really? Are they banning cars from ever entering the capital?
The whole thing is more like "Govt. is actively discouraging usage of cars"
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2165462/drive...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90294948/what-happened-when-oslo...