Hamburg, Germany wants to connect all of their green spaces via pedestrian and bike routes;
and eliminate cars over the next 20 years.
Copenhagen already has connected many of their green spaces with bike paths
and walkways.
http://sustainableci...e-cars-20-years
South Korea went carless for a month.
http://futurecapetow...h/#.U3ytBNJdWSo
See also-
http://futurecapetow...e/#.U3ytWtJdWSo
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
1
Carless cities? :)
Started by Shortpoet-GTD, May 21 2014 05:45 AM
bike paths pedestrians green spaces
7 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 21 May 2014 - 08:43 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 21 May 2014 - 05:45 AM, said:
Hamburg, Germany wants to connect all of their green spaces via pedestrian and bike routes;
and eliminate cars over the next 20 years.
Copenhagen already has connected many of their green spaces with bike paths
and walkways.
http://sustainableci...e-cars-20-years
South Korea went carless for a month.
http://futurecapetow...h/#.U3ytBNJdWSo
See also-
http://futurecapetow...e/#.U3ytWtJdWSo
and eliminate cars over the next 20 years.
Copenhagen already has connected many of their green spaces with bike paths
and walkways.
http://sustainableci...e-cars-20-years
South Korea went carless for a month.
http://futurecapetow...h/#.U3ytBNJdWSo
See also-
http://futurecapetow...e/#.U3ytWtJdWSo
Central London is already pretty much carless now - at least as far as private cars are concerned. I think it's cost rather than environmental concerns that discourages car drivers.
There is also a low emission zone to discourage polluting vehicles.
http://www.tfl.gov.u...w-emission-zone
#3
Posted 21 May 2014 - 04:30 PM
Besoeker, on 21 May 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:
Central London is already pretty much carless now - at least as far as private cars are concerned. I think it's cost rather than environmental concerns that discourages car drivers.
There is also a low emission zone to discourage polluting vehicles.
http://www.tfl.gov.u...w-emission-zone
There is also a low emission zone to discourage polluting vehicles.
http://www.tfl.gov.u...w-emission-zone
Thanks for the link.
#4
Posted 22 May 2014 - 02:23 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 21 May 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:
Excellent.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link.
The congestion charge which covers most of Greater London is $16.
Car parking, if you can find any, is upwards of $60/day.
Then you'd have to take public transport or a taxi to your final destination if not within walking distance.
By way of contrast, an all day travel card from our nearest railway station is about $30 now. And that gets you into London and unlimited travel on public transport (London Underground and buses) anywhere all day in London.
Makes it a bit of a no-brainer. Let the train take the strain....
My sister, who has a pub in London, doesn't have a car. She's go nowhere to park it even if she did.
#5
Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:07 AM
Europe (in general) can easily embrace the no car concept because many of the cities have old structures
and streets were built around them.
Because of that, they're tightly built, close together so it's much easier to run errands in the same area.
When Americans first came to the US, that concept remained for a time as seen with Boston and other
East coast cities, but as we moved West, we sprawled out.
Our "wide open spaces" mentality has mandated the use of cars. But as more people move to cities,
mass transit is more attractive than car maintenance, insurance, parking and the rest of the bs that comes with
owning them.
From the song-Don't fence me in.
"Oh, give me land,
Lots of land under starry skies above,
Don't fence me in,
Let me ride thru
The wide open country that I love,
Don't fence me in.
Let me be by myself
In the evening breeze,
Listen to the murmur
Of the cottonwood trees,
Send me off forever,
But I ask you please,
Don't fence me in."
and streets were built around them.
Because of that, they're tightly built, close together so it's much easier to run errands in the same area.
When Americans first came to the US, that concept remained for a time as seen with Boston and other
East coast cities, but as we moved West, we sprawled out.
Our "wide open spaces" mentality has mandated the use of cars. But as more people move to cities,
mass transit is more attractive than car maintenance, insurance, parking and the rest of the bs that comes with
owning them.
From the song-Don't fence me in.
"Oh, give me land,
Lots of land under starry skies above,
Don't fence me in,
Let me ride thru
The wide open country that I love,
Don't fence me in.
Let me be by myself
In the evening breeze,
Listen to the murmur
Of the cottonwood trees,
Send me off forever,
But I ask you please,
Don't fence me in."
#6
Posted 24 May 2014 - 09:45 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 22 May 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:
Europe (in general) can easily embrace the no car concept because many of the cities have old structures
and streets were built around them.
Because of that, they're tightly built, close together so it's much easier to run errands in the same area.
When Americans first came to the US, that concept remained for a time as seen with Boston and other
East coast cities, but as we moved West, we sprawled out.
Our "wide open spaces" mentality has mandated the use of cars. But as more people move to cities,
mass transit is more attractive than car maintenance, insurance, parking and the rest of the bs that comes with
owning them.
and streets were built around them.
Because of that, they're tightly built, close together so it's much easier to run errands in the same area.
When Americans first came to the US, that concept remained for a time as seen with Boston and other
East coast cities, but as we moved West, we sprawled out.
Our "wide open spaces" mentality has mandated the use of cars. But as more people move to cities,
mass transit is more attractive than car maintenance, insurance, parking and the rest of the bs that comes with
owning them.
I read an article that came into my business email in the last few days. About 50% of the world's population live in cities and cities occupy about 2% of the world area.
I'll see if I can find it,
#7
Posted 24 May 2014 - 11:46 AM
Cities are unsustainable monsters, no matter how you try to clean them up. They are the very symbols of gross overpopulation and the source of human pollution and depletion far beyond sustainable long term interglacial.
If they take up 2% of the area of land, it means nothing unless you compare it with arable land, pure water sources, and food production nearby. If any area or any country has to import resources for health, such as fruits that maintain our immune systems, then it is overpopulated, and should reduce to the lowering sustainable level, and new state of non-emissions, non-polluting, non-depleting energy and human activity.
Every human habitation requires a certain amount of land around it to supply all needs for human health, and over a long term.
Megapolises require the equivalent of circles hundreds of miles across, smaller villages a mile, but all overlapping on one another to the point of being in gross overshoot of resources, AND in gross overshoot of absorption rates.
It doesn't really matter much if you are car less, and are still in overshoot for your area.
Nature will eventually turn the ruins of deserted cities to stone, either by fossilization or subducted and melted into the upper mantle. Perhaps, even before that, the surface could become the oven hot of runaway greenhouse effect, and preclude the ability to form fossils.
"Deserted Cities Of The Heart"
If they take up 2% of the area of land, it means nothing unless you compare it with arable land, pure water sources, and food production nearby. If any area or any country has to import resources for health, such as fruits that maintain our immune systems, then it is overpopulated, and should reduce to the lowering sustainable level, and new state of non-emissions, non-polluting, non-depleting energy and human activity.
Every human habitation requires a certain amount of land around it to supply all needs for human health, and over a long term.
Megapolises require the equivalent of circles hundreds of miles across, smaller villages a mile, but all overlapping on one another to the point of being in gross overshoot of resources, AND in gross overshoot of absorption rates.
It doesn't really matter much if you are car less, and are still in overshoot for your area.
Nature will eventually turn the ruins of deserted cities to stone, either by fossilization or subducted and melted into the upper mantle. Perhaps, even before that, the surface could become the oven hot of runaway greenhouse effect, and preclude the ability to form fossils.
"Deserted Cities Of The Heart"
Upon this street where time has died.
The golden treat you never tried.
In times of old, in days gone by.
If I could catch your dancing eye.
It was on the way,
On the road to dreams, yeah.
Now my heart's drowned in no love streams, yeah.
The street is cold, its trees are gone.
The story's told the dark has won.
Once we set sail to catch a star.
We had to fail, it was too far.
Cream 1968
#8
Posted 24 May 2014 - 12:21 PM
Dustoffer, on 24 May 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:
If they take up 2% of the area of land, it means nothing unless you compare it with arable land, pure water sources, and food production nearby. If any area or any country has to import resources for health, such as fruits that maintain our immune systems, then it is overpopulated, and should reduce to the lowering sustainable level,
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users