Auto-free city?

[statler]

The absurd amounts on money spent on repairing the Tobin Bridge got me to thinking about how much we spend on auto infrastructure in this country and if it is possible to do without.


Ever wonder if it would be possible to build (or convert to) a fully private-auto free city?
The only vehicles in and out of the city would be delivery trucks, construction vehicles , emergency vehicles and mass transit. These vehicles would require a lot less infrastructure and it would need to be repaired a lot less frequintly.

What size population could such a system support? Would it be cost effective? Could the the money saved from infrastructure building and improvements be used to to lower taxes or build other amenities to attract people to live there?
Would the loss of revenue and jobs from auto-oriented businesses such as gas stations, drive-thrus, road construction and auto shops doom the city?

Are there any cities like this now? What cities come closest?

[vanshnookenraggen]

I met a guy at a meeting of the Association for Public Transit who told me he thought that we should eliminate all roads.

I hope these people stay too crazy for anyone to listen to them. The fact is that cars are great tools. What needs to change is our complete dependence on them. We need to have balanced cities, not ones where you ban certain kinds of transport.

Imagine Boston with no cars. Even if the T was expanded to my wildest dreams it would be crushed by the foot traffic.


That isn't to say we shouldn't limit cars. I am all for some kind of congestion charge in certain places.

Cars add just as much life as people but too many or too few of either is a bad thing

[statler]

Fair enough.

For the record I love my car and for the most part I love driving. They really do make life a lot easier.

However I look at how much money and time we (as a society) spend on private autos and related infrastructure and I wonder if it really is worth it in an economic and societal sense. Just an interesting thought experiment I guess.

As you say, a truly balanced city should be the ultimate goal. It's finding that balance that, as in all other things, is nearly impossible. But the closer we get the better we are.

[Ron Newman]

Venice, Italy is the prototypical auto-free city. Zermatt, Switzerland is another. Siena is not auto-free, but comes pretty close.

[vanshnookenraggen]

And the only people who live in Venice are tourists. You can't have a modern, healthy city grow and not have cars.

[jass]

You dont need a car-free city, just a car free zone.

Downtown boston could easily be a car free zone.

[ablarc]

And the only people who live in Venice are tourists.
Sorry, van, this just isn't true.

[vanshnookenraggen]

You're right, I was being facetious. But my second point is still true.

[statler]

What if, instead on banning cars or congestion tariffs we just stopped subsidizing them? Tear down the Tobin Bridge and not replace it. Rip out Storrow Dr. Narrow Congress St. Remove any infrastructure that is anti-urban. (What's the name of that overpass between the Back Bay and Kenmore Sq?)

The downside to this plan is massive traffic. This would negatively affect necessary deliveries of goods and the movement of emergency personal. People and businesses may choose to move out based on that.

Ideally though, the savings would be put back into the city in form of lower taxes, more pubic transportation and better amenities so everything would balance out and population would remain stable or even grow.

Just dreamin'.

[Beton Brut]

Just dreamin'.

Debbie Harry, one of my favorite New Yorkers, once astutely pointed out that dreamin' is free.

But this is Massachusetts after all, where even doing nothing has a cost associated with it. Take a ride through Storrow Drive Tunnel to see what I'm talking about.

I take the T to work every day; it's an hour door to door, from Orient Heights to Brookline Village. If I do drive (sometime I need to be someplace quickly after work), it's < 20 minutes. Even if I get a $15 parking ticket, those 40 minutes are worth something to me.

[statler]

I'm in the same boat.

I take the T from Malden (Oak Grove) to downtown (P.O. Sq) factoring in walking time it a little better than 45 mins on a good day door to door.

When I occasionally work weekends I'll drive in (less traffic, much cheaper parking) and it's >15 min door to door.

[touqen]

Much cheaper parking?

On a Sunday, I could believe that. Meters aren't free from 8am - 8pm on Saturdays in the Post Office square area. So spending say ... an 8 hour shift on a Saturday is still going to cost you $8 where as parking at Oak Grove is $3.50 for 24 hours. But if you factor in the cost of gas driving there and the cost of the T...

[Ron Newman]

Tear down the Tobin Bridge and not replace it.

You can't "not replace it", since in the absence of a facility for cars, people would have to walk or bicycle or take buses .... all of which still need a bridge across the Mystic.

The predecessor to the Tobin was a drawbridge, which I wish hadn't been removed after the Tobin opened.

[statler]

Ok, fair enough.

Tear down the Tobin and replace it with a less auto-centric, more urban scaled structure.

[vanshnookenraggen]

That is a laughably impractical idea. The Tobin is a HUGELY important connection to the north shore and is a necessity to keeping the region alive.

That doesn't mean that there aren't better alternatives. I would be in favor of a new bridge that had space for rapid transit, rail or bus, but any new bridge would have to be mainly for cars and trucks.

[Ron Newman]

I would be in favor of a new bridge that had space for rapid transit, rail or bus, but any new bridge would have to be mainly for cars and trucks.

and also pedestrians and bikes! Which could use the old draw-bridge just fine, but can't use the Tobin. (Even if the Tobin had a sidewalk, few people would want to deal with the steep climb and descent; this is why there should be parallel high-span and draw bridges)

[statler]

Much cheaper parking?

I was referring to parking at the Garage @ Post Office Sq. $33 on weekdays vs $9 on Sat. (free on street on Sundays)
Yeah, it's still cheaper to take the T on Sat but the lead time at 6am on a Sat morning is absurd. And it's not much better coming home. :x

As Beton said, I have better things to do with my time on the weekends, it's worth the $9.

[JimboJones]

Isn't there already a thread about this? I can't remember, specifically, but it was something about the price of parking or something ...

In Boston, however, many people say, "I drive my car because I don't have any other option." I guess that's true, but perhaps they could just drive to a train station?

I've taken the train to Beverly and to Providence in the past month, from Boston. So, reverse trips can and do happen, as well.

Also, about parking, I think people in NYC wouldn't feel it is a "right" to drive into the city. If you live in Brooklyn or Queens, would you even consider driving into the city, at all? No, you'd take the subway.

Yes, I realize, they have more public transit options. Still, I think you get my point. Here, it's just not an acceptable way of getting around, outside the city.

How many people will drive to Fenway Park, when they could take public transportation, instead?

[Beton Brut]

How many people will drive to Fenway Park, when they could take public transportation, instead?

I'd do both. Park in Brookline Village or Coolidge Corner and take the T (or walk). That's what I did for the ALDS Game 2. It's a mostly pleasant 25-minute walk from Yalkey Way to Station Street in Brookline Village. I was in my driveway in less than 15 minutes.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Also, about parking, I think people in NYC wouldn't feel it is a "right" to drive into the city. If you live in Brooklyn or Queens, would you even consider driving into the city, at all? No, you'd take the subway.

A majority of car trips into NYC are from Brooklyn and Queens. The subways are vast here but they still do not cover everywhere.

Also, the majority of car users in Manhattan are from Manhattan. There is a map of this but I can't seem to find it.

[shockingboston]

That is a laughably impractical idea. The Tobin is a HUGELY important connection to the north shore and is a necessity to keeping the region alive.

That doesn't mean that there aren't better alternatives. I would be in favor of a new bridge that had space for rapid transit, rail or bus, but any new bridge would have to be mainly for cars and trucks.

To expand your idea above how about this:
Construct rail ways down the center of all major highways and routes in and around Boston (i.e. 93 N-S, 90 E-W, Rt-9, Rt-2, and Rt-3). It could be mono-rail, commuter rail, or something like the orange and red line. I wouldn?t oppose losing 1 or 2 lanes on major highways and routes for the addition of rail transit.

The deduction of one lane would increase traffic, but it would lead to more people using the train (which in turn will decrease traffic). Station would have to be strategically constructed around particular exits.

The trains would not have to journey off the highway into the city, they can make connection points at the nearest MBTA station (i.e. JFK, Savin Hill, Back Bay, Alewife, Sullivan, among others (I am not too familiar with commuter rails stops or Green Line Stops around major routes)). The main purpose of the rail ways will be to, follow all major highways and routes. It doesn?t necessarily have to be down the center of the highway, but must follow the same path.

I would not install rail ways on 95 N-S, because I would leave that use for the national traffic that is just trying to get north of south of Boston or Mass.

[aquaman]

A better idea: put tollbooths up on 93 and generate some income off the north-south commuters (I don't know why Pike and Tobin users should be the only ones who have to pay to come into the city) and use the money to fund a better public transportation infrastructure?

[nico]

I think a combination of aquaman and shockingboston's ideas is what is needed. Aquaman's idea would deter people from driving (I say toll 93...especially from out of state!) and Shockingboston's idea would provide incentive; a reasonable alternative in the form of public transit.
First provide the trains and then deter the car traffic. Sell it well and I don?t see why it wouldn?t work. I see it as our only sustainable option going forward.
This of course would work wonderfully if everyone were driving into Boston...however this isn't the case. A N-S link and corresponding bus/shuttle system would help.

[unterbau]

Even though you'd save money on road infrastructure, there would be much more public transportation infrastructure to match the demand. Louis Kahn also wanted to create a car-free center of Philadelphia, but was quickly rebuffed. A few people talk about it in 'My Architect'. People simply didn't see it as a practical option for the city. It's one of those ideas that is great in theory, but if it didn't work in reality it could kill a city.

[whighlander]

Modern high-speed tolling can and should be emplaced on all highways into the city just inside of the outer-most subway stations {e.g. 93 N and S} as well as replacing the old system on the Pike, Tunnels and Tobin Bridge

That would raise revenue for transportation maintenance and possibly new construction, speed traffic flow and as a side benefit make the T more economically competitive with driving and parking

A few other simple changes -- put Charlie Card readers at all the T {commuter rail, subway, commuter boat} and Logan Parking garages and lots

Then give every resident of Greater Boston -- a free Highway Transponder and a free Charlie Card.

if you don't have a transponder -- there could be an off road vending kiosk where you could borrow one for use -- with just a major credit card swipe and there would be a companion drop off stop to return it on the highway outbound from the city {or otherwise you would be charged some $25 for a one way use without returning the equipment}

Then layoff all the toll takers on the Pike, Bridges and Tunnels ? this would also make a major down the road cut in the Pike?s pension and benefits budget


Westy

[Benson]

To expand your idea above how about this:
Construct rail ways down the center of all major highways and routes in and around Boston (i.e. 93 N-S, 90 E-W, Rt-9, Rt-2, and Rt-3). It could be mono-rail, commuter rail, or something like the orange and red line. I wouldn?t oppose losing 1 or 2 lanes on major highways and routes for the addition of rail transit.

The deduction of one lane would increase traffic, but it would lead to more people using the train (which in turn will decrease traffic). Station would have to be strategically constructed around particular exits.

The trains would not have to journey off the highway into the city, they can make connection points at the nearest MBTA station (i.e. JFK, Savin Hill, Back Bay, Alewife, Sullivan, among others (I am not too familiar with commuter rails stops or Green Line Stops around major routes)). The main purpose of the rail ways will be to, follow all major highways and routes. It doesn?t necessarily have to be down the center of the highway, but must follow the same path.

I would not install rail ways on 95 N-S, because I would leave that use for the national traffic that is just trying to get north of south of Boston or Mass.

I like this idea. It has crossed my mind many times. I think the other half that needs to happen is the clustering of development around these highway stations. Once you get off at a station somewhere along 128 it would be good to be able to get somewhere without a car. Once you have some densely built "nodes" you could simply connect the dots with rapid transit.

But then again now I guess I am starting to talk about a car-free Greater Boston as opposed to just car-free Boston.

[cden4]

But then again now I guess I am starting to talk about a car-free Greater Boston as opposed to just car-free Boston.

You're certainly talking about a less car-dependent Greater Boston, which is a very good thing. There needs to be a much better balance of non-car travel in the office park corridors of Waltham, Newton, etc. The roads keep getting bigger and bigger and as expected the traffic continues to get worse.

People need more options, whether it be train, bus, bike, walking, etc. You can only build so many office buildings with huge parking lots before you get more traffic than you can possibly handle.