What city?

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

I sometimes make the mistake of driving to college because it's faster. I'm always way less happy and focused (and sad cause of having to pay for parking). Ebikes are the shit. It's about 15 minutes driving and a 25-30 minute bike ride.

Been there at times. It's great not having to pay and worry about a car (done that at times as well). Yet, if you need to move house or get somewhere difficult, you can lease or borrow a car or van. And you can be an extra driver on trips.

Not just conservatives.

IMO part of the fix for that is liberating psychedelics. There has been some research finding that if someone takes psilocybin (shrooms) before they reach the age of 35, they are significantly more open minded for the rest of their life. Though I’m not sure how they controlled for the question as to whether the drug makes people more psychologically flexible or whether they are more psychologically flexible in the first place if they are willing to try it.

Either way, it seems to naturally follow that conservatives proportionally tend to avoid psychedelics. It’s anecdotal but my fellow psychonauts are all liberal.

Europeans and their weed with tobacco, smh my head

Public transport IS fun! Much easier to masturbate on the train than while driving a car

public transport is fun

Unfortunately here public transport is seen as something best left to 'the market', instead of treating it as a public commodity which gets its economic value from enabling people to contribute to economy by enabling them to get to work, go shopping etc. So now ticket prices are ridiculous, to the point where taking the car is 2-3 times cheaper. And of course you'll need to get to said transport first. Need a bus? If you do not live in a city or larger town you're just shit out of luck after 18:00 or so. Need to be somewhere, somewhat early in the morning? Wel tough luck for you, make sure to have somebody with a car standby to drop you off at the nearest train station. I want to like public transport and consider it fun, but my experience every time I try it is pain, suffering and awkward schedules instead. ☹️

Unfortunately it's easier (say: cheaper) to make driving so expensive and hard that it makes public transport look like the carrot, than actually making public transport more attractive so it actually becomes the carrot.

Every two lane road has enough space for four lanes of bicycles (one passing lane for ebikes and one lane for normal bikes going in each direction)

People absolutely be going the e bike route.

Ebikes.

Boomers. I was blown away when I went to a city hall meeting about expanding the roads and hearing their hot takes.

After the wave of old boomers (most of the audience) complained about how dangerous the whole world has become that they can't even take their trash out on the street, they say a walkable city just opens up "more danger".

To them, walkable streets means seeing more diversity, which is apparently super scary.

Yeah, what about my property values?? Will someone think of my property valuessss 😭😭😭

"People don't want to give up their freedom"

• The older generation

Gondolas are probably a lot more efficient than busses though, I'd have thought.

Gondolas can actually work as public transit. Depending on terrain they are actually a very efficient solution. You can find them in a few cities.

Then people will point to those prices as proof it's a "failure" then spend 2-3x what they "save" on housing on auto loans/expenses.

Send an email to your local council. Attach photos, explain what could solve your horrible situation. Nothing will probably happen, but if many people start asking those things officially, in the long run it may help.

I don’t think a car-free city actually exists. The article mentions Copenhagen:

“[London] has avoided the kind of outright car bans seen elsewhere in Europe, such as in Copenhagen”

I’ve been to Copenhagen. There are cars throughout the city. There are some cycle-only paths that connect to intersections with cars. I cycled along side cars all over the city. Apparently Wired is calling car-reduced cities and cities with small car-free regions a “car-free city”.

Exceptionally, Brussels is a car-free city but for only one day out of the year. And car-free day falls on a Sunday. On that day it becomes illegal to drive a car in the city center without a special pass after showing you have good reason to use a car on that day. But even on that day, the outer region of Brussels is unaffected.

how do you travel to another city?

Usually by bus or train.

What do you do if the city has high slopes making walking and biking too hard?

Walking is good for you, biking is not too popular in cities with slopes, but electic bikes are changing that.

Or how do elders deal with what other citizens would take for granted in terms of mobility?

There is definitely less mobility, but that is part of getting older isn't it? Usually they just walk a bit slower and use busses and taxies.

Also "car free" doesn't have to mean literally zero cars allowed, but just build and layout the city so you never have to use one for daily errands.

I live next to a grocery store and it's literally the best thing ever, grocery trips take 10 minutes max, I only end up using the car on weekends for hobbies or to visit family and friends.

For example, how do you travel to another city?

Train or car. Car free mostly refers to inner city trips, for special occasions it's totally fine to use a car (e.g. moving, buying something big, a weekend trip, etc)

What do you do if the city has high slopes making walking and biking too hard?

Bus, ebikes, other types of electric assist stuff, walking. Crazy steep slopes do put a limit on exclusively human powered mobility (i.e. walking and cycling), but those places are incredibly rare.

Or how do elders deal with what other citizens would take for granted in terms of mobility?

A walkable city features amenities close by, plenty of benches to rest, and a solid bus system. There are absolutely no issues for people with restricted mobility. This applies to people with disabilities as well btw.

In fact I would turn that question around: how do elders deal with the requirement to drive a car to get groceries, etc? Isn't that like super duper dangerous?

Trains.

Cool stuff

PEVs

Or how do elders deal with what other citizens would take for granted in terms of mobility?

Currently they alll use little electric mobility scooters, in cycle lanes when available, bacause its too dangerous to be any where there are cars here in Australia.

How do those with epilepsy get around, they can't drive at least they can't here in Australia. One lady with epilepsy I knew rode a little electric scoot, she loved having her independence.

What happens to people when they loose thier license in the US ?

how do you travel to another city

Car co-ops is one way.

I have a car, but I'm also in one as it gives me access to different vehicle types that I sometimes need.

To get some places here I also need to take a ferry, and walking on and renting a car on the other end can be situationally cheaper.

What do you do if the city has high slopes making walking and biking too hard?

E-bikes and regular bikes with good gearing. And walking up slopes generally isn't too challenging it's just slow. Infrastructure can help here too by making sure there are paths that don't go up hills unnecessarily. Fast and frequent public transport provides another option where walking and biking is less viable.

For example, how do you travel to another city?

Trains and buses. Car as a last resort (preferably one that is hired rather than owned, and preferably electric rather than an ICE).

Or how do elders deal with what other citizens would take for granted in terms of mobility?

Elderly people can't (or shouldn't) drive either so better walkability = better for the elderly since it gives options to get around without relying on a car. Good infrastructure design can help with disability access, and many disabled people can't drive anyway.

I understand you may not have lived carefree but here's two places with extreme weather that do fine without cars (provided people invest the minimum amount to establish public transport):

Winter (Norway, way below freezing): https://youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

Summer (Taiwan, 36C+): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dBk7lq8o1Y

Ah yes, winter! I live in a wintery place (Quebec) and cars in winter need very much care to work properly. They need plowed and salted streets or they get stuck or can't go uphill. If that level of care was the same for pedestrians and cyclists, it would be much easier to move around without a car.

Also, you may need a car because of chronic pain but surely not everyone driving a car needs one for chronic pain? And wouldn't it be nicer for people that really need a car if there were fewer cars around?

I'm in my early 40ies and lived all those winters without a car and I still think it's silly to say they are "adapted" or "working well" in winter. Every winter there are multi car collisions/pile-ups on highways. They slip and slide easily. Multiple times in a year cars can't climb the little hill in front of my place. It takes even more space to park them as there are snowbanks everywhere. Sometimes they get covered in ice.

I really can't see the appeal of a car in winter.

Good quality public transit can solve those issues as well. We should have a variety of options available for a variety of people who need them.

I think the term "car free" is a misnomer, more like "car as a non primary form of transport for most people most of the time" is more accurate but doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

There are a lot of people with mobility issues in such cities that are serviced in different ways, a lot of times with specially licensed cars etc.

Yeah, I hate the term "car-free". That said, even for someone who primarily uses a car, advocating for bike lanes and public transit makes sense, as the fewer people there are taking up road space and parking, the easier it is for you to drive / park.

Yeah, it gets to 48C in the summer here and biking or walking is not a preferred option unless showering at workplaces becomes a new norm

St Augustine?

London had a problem. In 2016, more than 2 million of the city’s residents—roughly a quarter of its population—lived in areas with illegal levels of air pollution; areas that also contained nearly 500 of the city’s schools. That same air pollution was prematurely killing as many as 36,000 people a year. Much of it was coming from transport: a quarter of the city’s carbon emissions were from moving people and goods, with three-quarters of that emitted by road traffic.

But in the years since, carbon emissions have fallen. There’s also been a 94 percent reduction in the number of people living in areas with illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant that causes lung damage. The reason? London has spent years and millions of pounds reducing the number of motorists in the city.

It’s far from alone. From Oslo to Hamburg and Ljubljana to Helsinki, cities across Europe have started working to reduce their road traffic in an effort to curb air pollution and climate change.

But while it’s certainly having an impact (Ljubljana, one of the earliest places to transition away from cars, has seen sizable reductions in carbon emissions and air pollution), going car-free is a lot harder than it seems. Not only has it led to politicians and urban planners facing death threats and being doxxed, it has forced them to rethink the entire basis of city life.

London’s car-reduction policies come in a variety of forms. There are charges for dirtier vehicles and for driving into the city center. Road layouts in residential areas have been redesigned, with one-way systems and bollards, barriers, and planters used to reduce through-traffic (creating what are known as “low-traffic neighborhoods”—or LTNs). And schemes to get more people cycling and using public transport have been introduced. The city has avoided the kind of outright car bans seen elsewhere in Europe, such as in Copenhagen, but nevertheless things have changed.

“The level of traffic reduction is transformative, and it’s throughout the whole day,” says Claire Holland, leader of the council in Lambeth, a borough in south London. Lambeth now sees 25,000 fewer daily car journeys than before its LTN scheme was put in place in 2020, even after adjusting for the impact of the pandemic. Meanwhile, there was a 40 percent increase in cycling and similar rises in walking and scooting over that same period.

What seems to work best is a carrot-and-stick approach—creating positive reasons to take a bus or to cycle rather than just making driving harder. “In crowded urban areas, you can’t just make buses better if those buses are still always stuck in car traffic,” says Rachel Aldred, professor of transport at the University of Westminster and director of its Active Travel Academy. “The academic evidence suggests that a mixture of positive and negative characteristics is more effective than either on their own.”

For countries looking to cut emissions, cars are an obvious target. They make up a big proportion of a country’s carbon footprint, accounting for one-fifth of all emissions across the European Union. Of course, urban driving doesn’t make up the majority of a country’s car use, but the kind of short journeys taken when driving in the city are some of the most obviously wasteful, making cities an ideal place to start if you’re looking to get people out from behind the wheel. That, and the fact that many city residents are already car-less (just 40 percent of people in Lambeth own cars, for example) and that cities tend to have better public transport alternatives than elsewhere.

Plus, traffic-reduction programmes also have impacts beyond reducing air pollution and carbon emissions. In cities like Oslo and Helsinki, thanks to car-reduction policies, entire years have passed without a single road traffic death. It’s even been suggested that needing less parking could free up space to help ease the chronic housing shortage felt in so many cities.

But as effective as policies to end or reduce urban car use have been, they’ve almost universally faced huge opposition. When Oslo proposed in 2017 that its city center should be car-free, the backlash saw the idea branded as a “Berlin Wall against motorists.” The plan ended up being downgraded into a less ambitious scheme consisting of smaller changes, like removing car parking and building cycle lanes to try to lower the number of vehicles.

In London, the introduction of LTNs has also led to a massive backlash. In the east London borough of Hackney, one councilor and his family were sent death threats due to their support for the programme. Bollards were regularly graffitied, while pro-LTN activists were accused of “social cleansing.” It was suggested that low-traffic areas would drive up house prices and leave the only affordable accommodation on unprotected roads. “It became very intimidating,” says Holland. “I had my address tweeted out twice, with sort of veiled threats from people who didn’t even live in the borough saying that we knew they knew where I lived.”

Part of that response is a testament to how much our cities, and by extension, our lives are designed around cars. In the US, between 50 and 60 percent of the downtowns of many cities are dedicated to parking alone. While in the UK that figure tends to be smaller, designing streets to be accessible to a never-ending stream of traffic has been the central concern of most urban planning since the Second World War. It’s what led to the huge sprawl of identikit suburban housing on the outskirts of cities like London, each sporting its own driveway and ample road access.

“If you propose this idea to the average American, the response is: if you take my car away from me, I will die,” says J. H. Crawford, the author of the book Carfree Cities and a leading figure in the movement to end urban car use. “If you do that overnight, without making any other provisions, that’s actually approximately correct.” Having the right alternatives to cars is therefore vital to reducing city traffic.

And any attempts to reduce urban car use tend to do better when designed from the bottom up. Barcelona’s “superblocks” programme, which takes sets of nine blocks within its grid system and limits cars to the roads around the outside of the set (as well as reducing speed limits and removing on-street parking) was shaped by having resident input on every stage of the process, from design to implementation. Early indicators suggest the policy has been wildly popular with residents, has seen nitrogen dioxide air pollution fall by 25 percent in some areas, and will prevent an estimated 667 premature deaths each year, saving an estimated 1.7 billion euros.

When it comes to design, there’s also the question of access. Whether it’s emergency services needing to get in or small businesses awaiting deliveries, there’s an important amount of “last mile” traffic—transport that gets people or things to the actual end point of their journey—that is vital to sustaining an urban area. If you want to reduce traffic, you have to work around that and think of alternative solutions—such as allowing emergency vehicles access to pedestrianized areas, or even using automatic number plate recognition to exempt emergency vehicles from the camera checks that are used to police through-traffic in LTNs (which is what Lambeth is doing, Holland says).

But even then, it’s often just hard to convince people an entirely different city layout is possible. Getting people to accept that how they live alongside cars can be changed—say, with an LTN—takes time. But government surveys of the UK’s recently implemented LTNs have indicated that support from residents for such schemes increases over time. “If you start seeing more and more of those kinds of things, things become thinkable,” explains Aldred. If you start unpicking the idea that car use can’t be changed, “it starts to become possible to do more and more things without cars for people.”

The other issue is that, to put it simply, cars are never just cars. They’re interwoven into our culture and consumption as symbols of affluence, independence, and success, and the aspiration to achieve those things in future. “A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself a failure,” the British prime minister Margaret Thatcher reportedly once said. “That’s how we got in this mess in the first place, though,” says Crawford. “Everybody saw that the rich people were driving cars, and they wanted to too.”

That divide goes some way to explaining why the opposition to car-reduction schemes is often so extreme and can devolve into a “culture war”—which is what Holland has found in her experience with LTNs. But that struggle also outlines an important fact about car-free urban areas—that once cities make the decision to reduce or remove cars, they rarely go back. No one I spoke to for this piece could name a recent sizable pedestrianization or traffic-reduction scheme that had been reversed once it had been given time to have an effect.

Many of the cities that pioneered reducing car use—like Copenhagen in the 1970s—are rated today as some of the best places to live in the world. Even with London’s experimental and often unpopular LTN scheme, 100 of the 130 low-traffic areas created have been kept in place, Aldred says.

“Generally speaking, if a sensible program is adopted to really reduce or eliminate car usage in a central urban area, it seems to stick,” says Crawford. “If you go back a year or two later, people will just say: well, this is the best thing we ever did.”

Reaching net zero emissions by 2050 will require innovative solutions at a global scale. In this series, in partnership with the Rolex Perpetual Planet initiative, WIRED highlights individuals and communities working to solve some of our most pressing environmental challenges. It’s produced in partnership with Rolex but all content is editorially independent. Find out more.

When we have a pedestrian zone here, there are bollards at each end. It tends to discourage most cars.

I lived in rural places without a car. This is an American problem because of policy not because you are rural.

I don't want suburbs at all and public policy should make suburbs unaffordable.

We don't have to convince them to give up their own cars; we just have to stop catering to them by providing so much subsidized road and parking space.

Yeah you're right, who likes no pollution, no noise, strong communities and third places to bond with people, kids having public spaces to play in their neighborhoods, green, sustainability, healthy, active people that don't sit in front of a wheel all day long... Who likes all that seriously?

It's awesome you didn't provide a single example about why you prefer unwalkable cities