Originally Posted by EnigManiac
A virtually car-free city (and why would it have to be in the US? Can't we have one in Canada?) would be, well, virtually impossible. Since that option wasn't there, I have not voted.
I'd like police, fire and ambulance to arrive quickly should I need them, so they would need to be exempt, as would delivery vehicles, construction, repair and city works vehicles, among many other commercial and business-related vehicles. There are those in our communities who are unable to walk or ride and they need to have equal access to all public areas as well. And, no matter where such a fantasy city is built, weather sometimes dictates that a motor vehicle or public transit is safer and more convenient.
What is needed is not so much a car-free city, but a city designed for people first and cars second, not the other way around. Perhaps Amsterdam could be the model. The city would have main avenues and streets that exclude motor vehicles (except emergency vehicles, of course) and roads for cars routed around so that deliveries can still be made efficiently and those who are unable to walk or ride would still have access to shops and services. Public trains/trams/buses would also have superior access to all destinations and, together with the non-vehiclular avenues, would be built first so that the infrastructure is already in place. Any expansion of the city or construction of new neighbourhoods, subdivisions and condo complexes would need to include accomodation for public transit/non vehicular access in the plans, mandatory green space and limited parking to discourage residents from using cars.
If you make everything easily accessible by bike or public transit and less atrractive (and costlier) by car, residents will use what is easiest. And if you build it they will come...no matter where it is.
And herein lies some great arguments against a car-free city. Actually, based on your argument, you might have chosen the "Constitutional" option. But lets look at these issues one by one.
1. Emergency vehicles: Police, fire, and ambulances. There are electric vehicles that can travel very fast (0-60 MPH in seconds), and can use trails. Similar to emergency vehicles in our existing cities, they would be equipped with sirens, and all the necessary equipment. They would be smaller, lighter vehicles (because trails don't have the structure to handle real heavy vehicles). Concerning law enforcement, I would think a car-free city would have distinct advantages. Outlaws would not be able to quickly get away from the police.
2. Elderly: Any great city has provisions for elderly and handicapped. My fair city has a subsidized dial-a-ride program that picks up the elderly in vans for $2, and takes them to their destination. I see no reason that this cannot occur with the similar "trail" vehicles as above. Even pedicab services could be used.
3. Weather: Has anybody noticed that hardly anybody uses umbrellas anymore? We have snowstorms here along the Colorado Front Range that virtually shut down our city, sometimes for days. Trails would be maintained, similar to roads in today's cities. Here in my city, they actually have electric vehicles to maintain the trails. They are equipped with rotating brushes, and do as good a job as the snow plows. Our city's budget gets zapped during some of these snowstorms. A trail system would be much easier to maintain under budget. Nothing is safer in harsh weather than walking.
Many of the US city planners would argue with you that their cities are designed for "people first". I agree with much of what you say here. But the fact is, if you build roads, you will have lots of cars, and sprawl, and everything we have in our cities today.