I don't understand this part, I read it quite often but... well, we are a family with young children, and although we do have a car we only use it once a week to go to the grand-parents that live 100 km away from here.
A city with less cars is great especially for families (though I would argue that cities themselves are not so great for children, but the comparison here is between cities that are car-centric or that are not). It makes going out easier and more spontaneous.
It's much less of a hassle to hop in the cargo bike and go wherever (including stopping en route if you see something interesting) than having to use the car, sit in traffic, hope you can find parking space at your destination, and pay for it.
I have very two kids, plan to have three. Cargo bikes are not practical, are easily stolen, and are not safe to transport children, especially under 6 years old. Besides, when doing groceries for 5 once a week, I regularly fill my 500L car boot, so an equivalent cargo bike with at least 3 seats and a large boot... would just be a car. Which you have, and use once a week.
Or when you need to go to the doctor. Or when your wife is sick. Or if you have an urgency. So, as a family, you still need a car.
Well I just have the reverse experience. My cargo bike is practical, has not been stolen yet and up to four children under 6 are fine to transport in it. I don't feel it especially unsafe.
I also use it for groceries. Sometimes using both the cargo bike and a bike trailer (on two different bikes). We don't buy nearly at many things though it seems. When I do use my car (doing groceries while the children are with the grandparents) I have to transfer them from the car to the bike anyway because I can rarely park close to my home.
My doctor (and my wife's doctor) is certainly easier to reach by foot than by car. And I guess I never have the kind of urgency that would require me to use a car in the city. If there's something urgent a bike is always faster in this city.
In the 60s, Dutch anti-car protestors had the slogan "Stop the child murder!". People were used to traditional cities where children could safely cycle around, but then cars came and started killing them.
If there are fewer cars on the road, there is a lot less traffic, and driving because much easier for those who are car-dependent. Example: the Netherlands.
Yes, but they're used less frequently. Most middle class people have a car, but they're often only used for irregular trips. Commuting and errands use alternative means at much higher rates than elsewhere.
Point is, they still need cars if they have them. And Netherlands are very far from Paris, infrastructure-wise. In Paris, for instance, leaving your cargo or e-bike outside for the night means finding nothing when you wake up (I got two bikes stolen already, and they were the cheapest available).
The topic of the original post is air pollution. Unused cars don't cause air pollution. The topic of this thread is inconveniencing the disabled. Unused cars don't cause traffic that inconveniences the disabled.
Paris tackled the problem by making it very hard to own a car. It's the same for Amsterdam, too. We all hate pollution, it's just that the solutions available in the Dutch countryside are a bit different than in Paris.
That’s not a given. Nobody here is talking about outright bans on all vehicles. Limited access for taxis and commercial use is a thing. Buses can be built with wheelchair access. Etc.
And with less space reserved for cars and only cars, there’s more space for wide/accessible sidewalks. Less chance of being run over by a car. Less air and noise pollution.
Well if you have less space for cars, parking spots are more expensive as a result. In Paris it's around a year of living wage. And currently, sidewalks are getting smaller due to the need to build bicycle lanes.
My initial post was that in Paris, they removed cars but did not improve public transports, so buses are overcrowded and hostile to strollers.
In Paris, 90% of the metro transportation system isn't accessible to wheelchairs and strollers. Buses are overcrowded and slow. Who doesn't enjoy to see someone cough on their newborn while fighting for a space for their stoller ?
Buses are perfectly accessible in Paris. They are crowded but acceptably so for a city of 10 millions. It’s not fair to expect the collectivity to accept the externalities of cars so rich people can avoid some slight discomfort.
Paris is not a city of 10 millions, it has only two million habitants. And cars are not reserved to rich people, why would they be? I grew up in Paris, my parents weren't rich, we were living in public housing and we had a car.
Families are not second-tier citizens, and currently the public transports are not suited for them. On top of the other problems, such as the pleasure of having to deal with crackheads and various homeless people in the metro when you have a baby.
When it comes to traffic and urban planning, Paris is best understood as a city of 10+ million people. The administrative subdivision called Paris has only ~2 million people, but the city doesn't end at its borders.
Yes, however there is little urban planning for whole metro, and the administrative level we are talking about here is the intra-muros one. When the mayor decided to reduce the speed on the outer loop, she didn't notify nor discussed with the rest of the metro, for instance. And the measures discussed in the article are specific to Paris.
> Yes, however there is little urban planning for whole metro
Paris biggest infrastructure project for the past 20 years is called "Grand Paris" and revolve entirely around the whole metro. Actually there is literally no urban planning not involving the whole metro. And yes, lowering the speed limit involved multiple consultations with the prefect and the region because it impacts the whole metro.
Considering Paris without its metropole doesn’t make sense. Paris intra-muros is ridiculously small, one eightieth of London, 80% of San Francisco.
You can consider as much as you want, it is not unified. The result is that Paris has an anti-car policy, but the neighboring towns are very pro-car, creating a system where Parisians can't own one, but have to bear their neighbor's who use them to get into the city.
The article you quote says the opposite of what you pretend. I invite you to read the paragraph "Une décision sous le contrôle de l’Etat, rappelle le ministère". It explains in details than the mayor could do nothing without the state agreeing to it.
> You can consider as much as you want, it is not unified.
It is unified. The city and its suburb are one economic unit. Where do you think all the service workers live? You have to be an extremely narrow minded inner city dweller to fail to see this.
> creating a system where Parisians can't own one, but have to bear their neighbor's who use them to get into the city.
I kindly invite you to check the average salary of Paris inhabitants vs the one in the suburbs then take a minute to think about what you just wrote.
Only if you just remove the cars without replacing them with good public transportation (family friendly, accessible, with special modes for disabled people).
Well, they aren't exempt. Many French greens will tell you anyway that having children is bad for the planet and that you should abstain. And, as our population grows older, the accessibility problem will be larger and larger.
