If you live out of the city, and the city blocks cars, you need a way to get to the city and a way to get around in the city. While local counsels can decide on city wide public transport, wider networks are necessary to reach outside of city limits. Thus we are talking about either an impressive public transport system outside the city as well (trains+bus), or an integration between cars and local transport (bus/metro). Trains take longer and are more expensive to build and maintain.

I am all for blocking cars away from cities, but it doesn’t always work super well, and if it doesn’t shop owners will be against it.

On the other hand, we are talking about Paris, that has both a wide public transport system and a reasonable integration of cars in this system. So, block away, really.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's almost as if part of "remove cars from the city" implies "create proper public transport and bike infrastructure"

Just doing one will of course not work. It's like building a house and not bothering to put in walls. And then complain that it's still as cold as before

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 1 points 3 days ago

Agreed. I have just seen it too often that one is done without the other. As if people could materialize in the city center on their own. Or in the bus going to the city center.

I live within city bounds. I don’t own a car and find little use for it. My parents live outside of the city, they have both no reliable public transport (30 minutes walking from the nearest reliable bus), and no parking space if they try taking the car to connect to the bus. When the city blocks cars, they just don’t go to the city because they have no access.

I keep seeing the same mistake being done and it bothers me.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)