Regular readers of this site will know we've been monitoring the UK government's anti-car stance closely. But we didn't see this coming. After an article in the medical journal Lancet concluded that London would need to be completely car-free to meet its CO2 reduction goals, the idea has started to gain traction amongst British environmental groups and politicians. The report's author, James Woodcock of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, says the numbers don't lie. "Aside from cutting transportation emissions across London by 72 percent, shunning car journeys would decrease the risk of premature death in certain people by as much as 40 percent." At a press conference attended by Bloomberg, Woodcock's colleague Andrew Prentice suggested extending the scope of London's congestion charge zone into outer boroughs. He also recommended upping the charge to 50 or 100 pounds ($100 or $200) "to show people what the city would be like without traffic.'' The BBC reports that London Green Party member Jenny Jones has another idea: "I have asked the London mayor to do a feasibility study into creating a car free pedestrian zone in central London linking all the main squares and parks."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I really don’t think that reducing this set of issues to “pro-car” vs. “anti-car” helps anyone. You could, for example, imagine there being enthusiast drivers who (a) want non-polluting vehicles or (b) detest car commuting or (c) think increased public transportation and reduced car commuting makes for better urban life for everyone. It’s not as though everyone who likes to drive fast also shares a single reductive set of political opinions. And I bet there are “anti-car” Londoners, even Green Londoners, who like cars a lot when they’re not clogging city streets for short jaunts in stop-and-go traffic but zipping through the countryside.
foobar:
I really don’t think that reducing this set of issues to “pro-car” vs. “anti-car” helps anyone.
It may not help anyone, but it is the truth.
I think the politicians who live and work in London should be forced to live without a car- none, at all, in the City- for 6 months before passing a law banning cars for everyone else. Somehow, I get a feeling that the Mayor, citing “the needs of the government”, will continue to be ferried around in bullet-proof lorries. Make Red Ken ride the bus or take the train like the rest of the proles, and then see how he likes it.
I think this vapid pro-car stance is similar to the NRA gun stance in that it is an all-or-nothing extremist view. I am hugely against cars in New York City, cause they just take up space, move slowly, and frankly are just in the way. Plus who the hell that is a car aficionado would call driving in a major city enjoyable. I will admit that public transit could be nicer in NYC and in London, but that could be remedied.
I bought a Boxster for leaving town and driving on nice, empty twisty country roads. I am not anti-car by any means, but in cities they are a huge detriment.
akatsuki: I think this vapid pro-car stance is similar to the NRA gun stance in that it is an all-or-nothing extremist view. “This” is not a vapid pro-car stance. There is a difference between wanting to create a clean, healthy urban center and seeking to eliminate cars (or at least severely restrict their ownership to wealthy individuals) via government taxation or an outright ban. There are many areas where the UK and London government’s anti-car policy does not intersect with its stated goals of improving the environment. For example, what about urban bus and taxi pollution, which spews huge amounts of diesel-derived particulate matter into the atmosphere? If you eliminate cars, won't you have to increase buses? CO2 goes down, particulates go up. Even if you believe a government has the right to use punitive taxes to restrict car use, it’s important to balance any harm the car does with an appreciation of the good it delivers to both individuals and society. As someone who watched a city center roll over and die when the central district was pedestrianized, I can attest to the fact that cars are a vital part of any urban area's existence. Ban them and they don't disappear; they go elsewhere. A “jihad” is a holy war. When I use the term, I’m trying to say that the policies of the UK government regarding the automobile are based on myth, prejudice and emotion. Those of us who celebrate the car are not blind to its deficiencies or insensible to policies designed to minimize them. Those who vilify the car are blind to its advantages and insensible to policies designed to foster them.
Well said, Mr. Farago.
London functioned just fine as a major metropolis without cars for, oh, a few hundred years. I suspect that Londoners could adjust.
Why does everyone these days want to live an unexciting 150 year life?
bfg9k:
London functioned just fine as a major metropolis without cars for, oh, a few hundred years. I suspect that Londoners could adjust.
Sure. Bring back the horseshit! Oh wait…
Well, they’re not going to ban delivery trucks, nor taxis, nor police cars, nor anything else designated ‘official use’ (meaning that our beloved ruling class won’t have to comply) so it’ll never be ‘car free.’ And since the public transit system is already running pretty much at capacity, I’m not quite sure how this whole thing is supposed to work…
-S5
Robert Farago:
It may not help anyone, but it is the truth.
No, I think not. I live in Manhattan, I love my car, and I think the city would be much better off with half as many cars and maybe even a huge car-free zone in the middle. There is no inconsistency.
This is the country the fought AGAINST the Nazi’s in WWII right? I’m starting to think I read the wrong history books. And people wonder why I don’t even have a desire to visit the UK.
brownie Are you prepared to let your taxes triple to pay for all the new subways that would need to be built to hold all those people that can’t drive & ride a taxi. Infastructure like that is expensive, very expensive, look how long and much it cost to build the World Trade center terminal and you are talking about 50-times that cost. And it wont be car free, it will switch from gridlock car, taxi and bus traffic to just gridlocked busses.
Your solution will make the problem worse not better and possibly kill the city in the long term.
Hey, Brownie. NYC already has a big car-free zone in the middle. It’s called Central Park.
And what’s with all this griping about driving in the city? It’s not so bad. Can actually be fun sometimes. Kind of like a big puzzle. Just learn to drive like the taxis do. City driving is kind of like cichlid fish sparring in an aquarium. Whoever is more agressive and gets their nose in front first usually wins. Or gets it hit.
Redbarchetta: How many people do you think drive into Manhattan for work? The percentage is certainly no higher than the 15% cited in various surveys I’ve seen, but I think it’s actually lower – the ratio of cubicles to parking spaces must be at least 100 to 1, so where are all of these people parking?
In any case, I doubt a tripling of taxes would be required to accommodate another 15% of commuters. Suburbanites don’t need a train station outside their door, they just need to drive to one. Hell, they can drive all the way to just outside the city and take a train, ferry or bus for the last bit.
The real obstacle to an eminently logical congestion plan is that the people who commute by car are disproportionately influential, either because they are government workers (who drive to Manhattan at a rate closer to 35% than 15%, apparently), or they are of above average affluence (otherwise they would choose the cheaper option of mass transit over the daily tolls, parking, etc.).
radimus: I actually like driving in the city. But I like it a lot more on days when its not super-congested.
radimus: As for Central Park, you’re right – can you try to get my boss to move our office there? Thanks.
1) If a fire breaks out in a “car-free” zone, do the firemen have to run to the scene carrying the fire hose?
2) If a hostage situation occurs in a “car-free” zone, do the police have to walk up and sit behind their riot shields?
3) Would motorcycles be allowed in the “car-free” zones? If so those areas may experience an unexpected shift in social demographics!
4) If no motorized transportation is allowed in the “car-free” zone, they may as well call it the hippie zone because that’s what it would become!
Um, Central Park is far from car-free. There are two or more cross roads through it east/west that have little pedestrian traffic, and cars are allowed on the main loop for much of the week and I think all the time in the winters. Furthermore, there have been several pedestrian deaths in Prospect from cars, and I personally have been hit by a car while riding my bike in Central Park.
Look dude! I’m not kidding. This is a vid from central park. http://youtube.com/watch?v=AaD0fgKfFo4
GRRR cars in manhattan suck. especially vans, they divide cross streets into sidewalk__WALL OF VANS___street___WALL OF VANS___Sidewalk. at least in the uk you can see through or over most cars.
From Transalt.org
“In February 1998, two runners on the park drive were seriously injured by an out-of-control taxicab. In 1997 in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park, which similarly allows car traffic, a 57-year old woman was struck and killed by a van while riding her bike. There are also many less serious accidents involving cars and park users, and between park users competing for space in the narrow “recreational lane.”
Hmm, between America and Not-America, I’m pretty sure this London place is in the Not-America part.
So, who cares?