Hacker News Reader

Comment by Yuval_Halevi | Hacker News Reader

As someone who lived next to the main square in Amsterdam

I never understood why people choose to drive with a car on the roads that cross the city (if they don't live there/uber/taxi drivers)

Main streets in cities should be car-free

I'm glad to hear about Berlin decision. For many more to come

View on HN

I really don't see why taxis or Uber should be allowed, at least if they are not fully electric. They are often larger than private cars, and they drive only the chauffeur and typically one grown up customer around, who could easily have walked, taken the metro or a bus. Half the time they are just waiting around for customers while the engine is on so the chauffeur can cool down or warm up inside.

A better exception would be EVs. Then lower their speed limit to 20 or 30 km/h in the city center, narrow car space to one lane in each direction, and free up the rest of the space on the streets for pedestrians, bikes, electric scooters, etc.

Not everyone is capable of walking long distances, using bikes or electric scooters. Taxis are a form of public transport.

I'm not saying everyone who uses them needs to use them, but if you ban them outright you ban certain people outright, which is discrimination in the absence of alternatives.

Amsterdam in particular (mentioned in the GP) has excellent metro and tram networks, so you never have to walk far if you don't want to.

That said, the trams can still be really awkward if you're disabled, particularly if you're in a wheelchair as, somewhat incredibly in this day and age, not all trams are wheelchair friendly. And on those that are, you are reliant on the conductor to manually push out a ramp for you.

I do also agree that taxis are a form of public transport, and I don't personally think they should be excluded from places that buses and trams are permitted.

> in the absence of alternatives

Can't make this argument any longer. Plenty of electric vehicles which can serve as taxis, and in the UK they manufacture one especially for the purpose. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEVC_TX

At least in the US, you could make a compromise along ADA lines.

Maybe I'm ignorant of this exact situation, but if it's only one road that's closed, shouldn't the other roads be close enough? What stops a car from entering an alley so someone with limited mobility can enter it?

For city centers, rickshaw taxis are effective. They can be pedal and/or electric.

Not during a Berlin winter.

Why not? Put big (fatbike) tires on and a strong motor in, done.

There are closed-cabin tuk-tuk style designs too that would provide weather shelter.

Then what's the difference with a small (electric) car?

(Assuming you mean a very small EV on the "smart car" scale.)

They are less broad, seating is in-line rather than side-by-side (more suited for a taxi), they are designed to move through messy traffic such as pedestrianized areas rather than on open roads, at lower speeds, with lower energy expense.

Taxis are pretty cramped already, as a rule. I cannot fit comfortably in many smaller cars, and have difficulty getting my legs in front of me and keeping my head upright. I'm considered tall, but not hugely so; what are such people to do? Let alone wheelchair transport? Keep in mind that smaller transport options such as these are typically used in places where the average person is much shorter. They are also usually not accessible to the handicapped. Finally, many Americans are too fat to fit in narrow seats.

They are super-annoying and they don't give a shit about rules - dangerous for pedestrians and other cyclists.

That's cultural and not intrinsic. There are places with "what rules" car driving culture too.

Should they blow up all hotels in the city centres?

Some people have 2-3 bags. Good luck rolling them around on cobblestone streets during a rain storm

Electric taxis, metro etc.

Stop packing so much crap when you travel. You don't need it. I can fit everything I need for a 2-week trip in a backpack.

Sounds like you aren't traveling with a baby or young kids.

Travelling with small kids with a small backpack is very liberating, a paperclip solves most problems if you are a hacker even when handling small kids. It's more of an attitude than anything.

Trip? Son I need to buy 3 boxes of bagels and donuts for work, plus 2-3 boxes of brewed coffee, and maybe pick up or drop off some camera/recording equipment. This isn't backpacking, this is a weekly meeting.

I'm glad you can fit your life in a backpack but that's not realistic for many day-to-day situations.

We call them "carts". They have four wheels, let you haul around a lot on foot and have been in use for centuries.

Well, don’t buy bagels and donuts and coffee. I don’t do lunch and I also skip breakfast on odd days. I’m also constantly in motion, like, right now, I’m doing leg lifts that are imperceptible to the the human eye - I call them hummingbirds. You really should stop cultivating mass, and start harvesting.

This is how I feel about Manhattan/NYC. It should be limited to taxis/uber, buses, garbage, ambulances, and delivery trucks. There should be large garages/parking lots that are free/cheap just north of it in the bronx and people can quickly commute in via a shuttle, bus or bike.

It should be limited to taxis/uber

Wouldn't that just lead to everybody becoming Uber drivers that just happen to never quite getting around to picking up passengers?

Same with delivery trucks. "No officer I'm not driving to work, I'm a one man delivery company delivering this briefcase to my office in my car".

I'm in no way a fan of the medallion system, but if your goal is to put a hard limit on the number of cars in a city then you're going to need some way to enforce that limit.

One idea might be to rework the "medallion" system so that they're sold at auction at the start of each year, and are only valid for 1 year. Then let both taxi companies and Uber/Lyft/etc. drivers bid against each for medallions once a year in an open market.

There are a number of ways to handle "cheating" - greatly increased insurance and license expense for CDL drivers would probably cut down on most systemic fraud.

You don't need a CDL to drive for Uber. The whole point is that any one can pick up is phone and start driving. How do you stop that? Given the climate of Houston summers, I'd just come in an hour, hour-and-a-half early and do three trips to call myself a driver; literally just so I could avoid the heat.

New York requires that you get a license from the Taxi and Limousine Commission in order to drive for Uber.

https://www.uber.com/drive/new-york/resources/ https://www.uber.com/drive/new-york/get-a-license/

I was about to object, but I think as long as Taxi/Uber/Ride share are allowed in the center it'd be a huge improvement for Amsterdam. Taking a car anywhere inside prisengracht is already an exercise in pain, but opening up the city a little bit more would make the few "dicey" intersections in Amsterdam easier on a bike.

Why should taxis be allowed. They are even worse than personal cars because they spend a lot of time driving with no one being transported.

Taxi exemptions make no sense to me either, it would just make life easier for well-off people.

Biking or public transit it the answer.

Bikes and public transport work well for people who can afford to live centrally, close to dense transport networks and within range of easy biking.

But if you're out socializing, you may be drunk (so unsafe to bike) and late (where transport networks start getting sparse). That's when taxis make more sense.

But if you're out socializing, you may be drunk (so unsafe to bike) and late (where transport networks start getting sparse). That's when taxis make more sense.

Sure, but why does the taxi have to pick you up right outside the club. Most of the time it's not unreasonable to expect people to walk a short stretch to a place where a taxi can pick you up.

Oh I fully agree with pedestrianizing streets, what I don't agree with is banning taxis from city centres.

I guess it all depends on how big your definition of "city centers" is. Is it 1 km or 10 km across? Thinking realistically about my own city, I could probably draw 3-5 "islands", each ~1km across, within in the larger city center that I would make car free, but still have roads running between/around them.

Transporting bulky or heavy items can be impractical by bike or public transport, as in when shopping or moving.

People with ilnesses and/or mobility issues also come to mind.

Cars' carrying capacity and weatherproofing are useful. As long as the number is limited and their usage is shared (taxis, carsharing), their existence can be a net positive in my opinion.

If you've been to Amsterdam, you'll realize that people don't give a fuck about weatherproofing. They're out riding bikes in normal clothes in the biggest of deluges. It's frankly jaw-dropping for me to see.

Nevertheless, the examples you've stated are easily dealt with by allowing as-needed exceptions for the disabled. I don't see what moving houses has to do with wanting to go to the town center in a car though.

The difference in amount of bikes you see on a rainy/cold day vs a warm spring day is huge though.

I think what he means is that when you want to move a couch/bed/big television for example you don't really have good options, because even disassembled these are usually pretty bulky boxes to move through public transport or by bike.

A flatbed bike trailer can carry more than a pickup truck. We moved house by bike. 20 friends makes easy work.

Well, some years ago I helped a friend move from a place in central Amsterdam to Berlin. It would have been really expensive to hire a moving company, compared to renting a van and a car.

In Berlin, where I live (in the center in fact), we're big on reusing and recycling. I don't own a car, but quite often I need to transport bulky second hand items from wherever I bought them, or bulky trash to the recycling center. So I drive one from a car-sharing app.

I've also needed to take someone to a hospital, and it was just quicker to grab a car2go than waiting for an ambulance.

My point is, there are many use cases where the ability to drive or call a taxi is better than the existing alternatives. I agree that cities everywhere need far fewer cars in them, and I think Berlin with its focus on biking and public transportation but availability or car-sharing vehicles for on-demand private driving is heading in the right direction without having to outright ban cars.

But your life is the perfect example to make my point!

We SHOULD use cars. But we should treat them as garnish, not the main course. Use them for exactly the things they're great for: moving houses, needing to visit the hospital, long road trips to a destination where you'll need flexibility to drive around once you reach etc.

I'm not advocating a ban on cars. I'm not even advocating not owning them. The simple step of banning them on the main shopping street is a far cry from any of those things, but makes the actual experience of being on that street a lot better for the shoppers.

>Transporting bulky or heavy items can be impractical by bike or public transport, as in when shopping or moving.

You don't use a taxi for moving residences, you use a moving truck.

For shopping, if you can't carry it yourself, then have it delivered.

Taxis are important for elderly or disabled people who can't use public transport or walk medium distances.

Why can't they? I see people on wheelchairs and elderly get on the bus all the time. Yes walking long distances could be an issue but a good public transport system does not require you to walk long distance. Elderly people usually can't afford to get a taxi everywhere.

There some that can, and some that can't. Some that can innrush our, somemthst can't in rush hour.

And about costs: At least here in Germany health insurance for isntance cover some costs for Taxis (when going to a doctor ... while they got stricter) Also in Germany Taxis have regulated prices in order to give some affordability. (Which is one of the critiques on Uber over here, as Uber can pick the routes they like and can raise prices on high demand, while making it cheap innorder to compete with regulated market during other times in hardly predictable ways, which isn't good for people who depend on working transport infrastructure)

I don’t think they’re worse, because the total carbon footprint is much smaller compared to everyone owning their own car

Also much less space would be taken up by street parking. Eliminate parking space in those limited zones, and you can have wider walking spaces, more greenery, that's already a benefit.

A solution doesn't have to be 100% perfect immediately to be of benefit to people.

Higher standards enforced on commercial drivers license/taxi, adhoc transit for elderly/mobility reduced (you're on crutches), things like delivery of a modest amount of heavy shopping from stores without delivery, and because the central area of Amsterdam is actually relatively large.

As someone who studied in Groningen... I really miss the car-free center[0][1]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svN1xSJ_AAU

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv38J7SKH_g

yeah it's great, you also get kind of more a village vibe / forum in the city because there is a real pedestrian heavy city centre instead

Because wealthy people shopping at the Bijenkorf want to drive and park there. Other than that, I also can't think of a reason. If the area became car-free I would warrant that the shopping giant would move.

It’s not that hard to understand. People want to take their cars shopping with them. Walking home with your shopping, catching public transport with your shopping, dragging your shopping around from one place to another, are all either inconvenient or impossible depending on what you’re going shopping for. Unless I can easily fit everything I intend to buy in my bag, I’d want to take car with me.

You can still park outside the city and walk the short distance or if it's too heavy to carry then most stores do free delivery for large orders.

Personally, I just avoid shopping in the city center unless I have a particularly good reason to. But the parent said they couldn’t understand why anybody would want to drive into the city. The answer is perfectly obvious. Convenience, even though it comes at the expense of taking more time. Everybody could do things the way you suggest too, but it would still be less convenient, so not everybody will do that every time. I’m sure many of those same people also buy things online, in circumstance where that’s the more convenient option.

For this reason, furniture shop, hardware shop, or any shop that tend to sell bulky things is usually not in the city center in a place more accessible by car and with a parking. At least, that's what happening in my city.

For other shopping, you can usually park in a relay parking (a parking close to public transportation) and you will be 5 to 15 minutes from the shops. And unless you brought a real shitons of things (which already means that going shop to shop is going to be annoying anyway) it's not going to be an issue. I lived 8 years in my city without a car. I was very rarely a problem.

The only thing is for people with disability. I can understand that for them, a car can still be practical.

I’ve lived in cites without owning a car for long stretches of my life, I’m in no way a private transport evangelist. But what you’re describing demonstrably a compromise in convenience, and not one that all people are will to make, or one that people will be willing to make every time. This is perfectly easy to understand.

I honestly don't see it that way. Car in city center usually lead to horrible horrible traffic, especially in our old European town where the centers are usually full of narrow streets.

It then becomes annoying for everybody: As a driver, you will be stuck in traffic and pollution most of the time. As a pedestrian, you will have to always mind your surrounding to be safe and you will have to smell the horrible car exhaust.

Since our center is mostly car free, it honestly feel more convenient. Sure you have to sacrifice the convenience of being close to your car, but you can be in and out of the center in a matter of minutes, never be stuck in traffic, and being there is much more enjoyable.

Also, my city converted a lot of road into pedestrian way and they added a lot of place to sit down, take a break, ... Before that, you where always stuck in a narrow sidewalk, bumping into other people with cars going full speed less than 1,50 meters next to you... Not really a pleasant experience. Your only hope to catch a break was in the shops themselves, meaning you where trying you damnest to go from shop A to shop B as quickly as possible. It made people overall more aggressive and your experience very bad.

And finally, they added more green space which help prevent flood which started to appear in the last years because we had too many area covered in asphalt.

But that’s still a compromise in convenience. You’re trading not dealing with one problem for not dealing with another. You’re making a qualitative judgement about which problem you care about the most. It’s not reasonable to assume that everybody cares about the same conveniences that you do.

I prefer the convenience that doesn't eventually set the atmosphere on fire because of mass CO2 release. Car free areas, especially integrated with housing drastically reduces the amount of travel necessary.

Funny thing is for cities with cruise ship ports cars are minor priblem: https://www.thelocal.es/20190606/barcelona-and-palma-ranked-... And for those blancket ban for four wheels won't even make a dent. Interestingly general perception is to get more cruise ships!

The tradeoff being made is a slightly more convenient experience for the shopper at the expense of everyone else in the city due to congestion, noise and pollution. It is selfish.

however, the infrastructure must be in place to make the public transport option viable in the first place.

Drivers cause congestion on the roads not the sidewalks, they’re only affecting other drivers, and if you expect the center of major cities to be a quiet and peaceful place, then I think you’re just setting yourself up for a lifelong disappointment on that front.

Convenience is a low, low bar for anything.

We already live in a society that is WAY too convenient. Instant messaging, online shopping, GPS, Google and all the rest of it has moved us one step closer to a ultimate, permanently-cathetered lifestyle of never having to leave the couch.

Let's welcome a reduction to the tiresome noise of internal combustion, methinks.

If you think convenience is a bad thing, then you’re free to live your life accordingly. But you’re not going to convince many other people to join you.

this is a us/australia way of thinking. most of the world just buys what they need for that day on the way home. they don’t need huge refrigerators. and there are more opportunity for social interaction and more exercising.

this is one thing i greatly miss from having worked next to a small grocery store. there were always fresh flowers in the house, and even when i wasn't up to cooking dinner or going out, they had fresh-made items that could quickly heat up.

unfortunately, after leaving that job i could never get back into that habit - maybe because my only other option (two blocks from home) was a large chain store, and the food quality was never quite the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com