Rising oil prices and economic incentives could actually be favourable for the ban of cars in cities as eventually, we will have to shift from the use of finite resources, whether that be by transitioning to hydrogen or electricity is an option. However, we could re-evaluate the entire scheme and learn from past mistakes. By banning cars from cities, local municipalities could be creative in working out ways to find alternative use of space and transport that would reshape cities into public places and increase safety measures. Of course, this would be a process that should happen over a long period, and require optimal use of alternative transport as we rely so much on cars nowadays. This could be an unpopular move since our economies rely a lot on the use of cars, but it could bring along a lot of benefits. Therefore, my thesis statement is: Governments should integrate a policy that bans cars from cities to enhance culture, social cohesion and safety.
Streets can be reshaped into the public places they once were
“The word citizen has to do with cities, and the ideal city is organised around citizenship – around participation in public life.” This quote from world citizens explains the concept is about someone that is aware and understands the wider world and their place in it. This understanding of the wider world is of critical importance and starts with understanding the functioning of your own city (Oxfam GB | What Is Global Citizenship?, n.d.). Understanding the functioning of one city can promote active roles in the community and form a sense of unity that should be projected into the wider world to solve global problems consciously. Obviously, our streets have grown along with the urban development to sustain the growing economies and become places to transport people efficiently. This transportation became optimised for one purpose, namely traffic. Vehicles and parking spots overtake most of the surface area in a city’s streets and might be used for purposes in favour of urban connectedness between a city’s citizens. The infrastructure investments that were made over time to develop transportation around the use of cars have turned out to create a sort of monoculture as streets and parking spaces took over places that were once used to support a sense of citizenship.
Even though this evolution was unavoidable, once the car was invented, local municipalities could counter this process by restoring public places that encourage social cohesion. Cities like Barcelona and Groningen, for example, have reclaimed public places to introduce public parks or to popularise the use of alternative transportation methods, like public transport or bikes (Reporter, 2022). Alternative transportation methods, on the one hand, solve the problem of the degradation of public places that promote citizenship, and on the other hand, it tackles the increasing problem of CO2 emissions. Furthermore, this enhanced citizenship would demand urban changes that have the potential to improve a city’s culture by installing parks, theatres, etc. These reconstruction options demand people’s creativity and would cause an outcome that addresses the needs of all community members while influencing external aspects as well like tourism, for example (World Bank Group, 2019).
A safety measure for a city’s citizens and promotion of well-being.
Banning cars from cities would be a potentially unpopular move, but it could provide numerous benefits to the citizens of a city. By eliminating vehicles from the city, the risk of car accidents would be dramatically reduced, leading to an overall increase in safety. Besides the reduction in accidents, banning cars from cities would help to reduce air pollution. With fewer cars on the roads, the number of harmful emissions would be dramatically reduced, leading to improved air quality for citizens. This would lead to improved health for citizens, with fewer cases of respiratory diseases and other illnesses that are caused by air pollution. The removal of cars from cities would also help to reduce noise pollution. By eliminating the noise of car horns and engines, citizens could enjoy a quieter and more peaceful environment. This could lead to improved mental health, as the noise of traffic can be a major source of stress and anxiety for many people (Jennings, 2019). The removal of cars from cities could also lead to the introduction of more green spaces. With fewer cars on the streets, more space would be available for parks and gardens, providing citizens with more places to relax and enjoy the outdoors. This could lead to improved physical health, as citizens would have more access to open spaces where they can engage in physical activity. Banning cars from cities could also help to reduce traffic congestion. Finally, banning cars from cities would be a powerful statement of the city’s commitment to sustainability. By eliminating vehicles from the city, the city would send a message to its citizens and the world that it is serious about reducing its environmental impact. This would lead to improved public perception of the city, as it would be seen as a leader in sustainability and innovation. All in all, banning cars from cities would be a radical but potentially very beneficial move. By eliminating vehicles from the city, safety would be increased, air and noise pollution would be reduced, more green spaces would be available, and traffic congestion would be reduced. All of these benefits would make the city a much safer and more enjoyable place for its citizens (Why Cars Don’t Belong in Cities, 2020).
Cities are built around the use of cars and banning them would reduce efficiency and have a toll on industrial transportation.
As the global population continues to grow and the world becomes increasingly interconnected, cities around the world are facing an unprecedented amount of traffic congestion. This has led to a growing sentiment to ban cars from cities to reduce traffic congestion, reduce CO2 emissions, and make cities more livable. However, banning cars from cities would be counterproductive, as it would reduce the efficiency of industrial transportation and have a negative impact on the economy. First and foremost, banning cars from cities would have a major impact on the efficiency of industrial transportation. As cities become more populous, there is an increased demand for the efficient transportation of goods and services. Cars are a key component of efficient transportation, as they provide a reliable and cost-effective way to move goods from one place to another. If cars are banned from cities, it would increase the cost of transportation and reduce the efficiency of industrial transportation. This would have a significant impact on the economy, as businesses would have to spend more money to transport goods, resulting in higher prices for consumers.
Finally, banning cars from cities would significantly reduce the quality of life for many people, especially those who rely on cars for their daily commute. In addition, banning cars from cities would be a major inconvenience for those who need to travel outside of the city for work or leisure. Without cars, people would have to rely on public transportation, which is often unreliable and difficult to access in many cities. In conclusion, banning cars from cities would be counterproductive as it would reduce the efficiency of industrial transportation, have a negative impact on the environment, and reduce the quality of life for many people. Instead of banning cars, cities should focus on developing policies that reduce congestion and improve the efficiency of transportation while also reducing CO2 emissions. This could include the introduction of more efficient public transportation, better traffic management systems, and greater investment in cycling and walking infrastructure (Automobile Dependency and Economic Development, 2002).
Conclusion
Governments should integrate a policy that bans cars from cities to enhance culture, social cohesion and safety. Cities developed in a parallel way to the economic development that occurred worldwide, which supported the use of cars. Therefore, reducing these from cities would result in a transportation problem for people that rely on cars. These people mainly include working people and people that rely on it daily. With good urban planning and alternative transportation methods and correct jurisdiction that could provide fair exceptions for some people, this view on cities could become a reality with a systemic approach. To ban cars from cities would result in a lot of benefits regarding the social, economic and environmental environment. I believe that this could be a good way to tackle problems we deal with nowadays, but it requires the optimal provision of alternative modes of transport so that even industrial transportation would benefit from it.
References
Automobile Dependency and Economic Development. (2002, August 6). Victorie Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved November 29, 2022, from https://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf
Jennings, V. (2019.). The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/3/452
Oxfam GB | What is Global Citizenship? (n.d.). Oxfam GB. https://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/who-we-are/what-is-global-citizenship/
Why Cars don’t Belong in Cities. (2020, March 16). ECF. https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/why-cars-dont-belong-cities
World Bank Group. (2019, March 4). Culture Is Key to “Building Cities Back Better.” World Bank.https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/03/04/culture-is-key-to-building-cities-back-betterReporter, G. S. (2022, October 19). The big idea: should cars be banned from cities? The Guardian.https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jul/11/the-big-idea-should-cars-be-banned-from-cities
I like the attitude! However, completely eradicating cars from cities and finding a viable solution for not only industry but also the people who rely heavily on private vehicles for longer daily commutes seems like a bit of a stretch. Perhaps a suggestion to limiting the number of cars in cities would firstly be to implement regulations on the number of cars allowed per household and encourage gig-economies and sharing economies. Well structured essay, with great lay-up to a good discussion!
Yes, I agree that it is a big stretch, however that is why I mentionned that fair exceptions should be installed if cities were to ban cars. It would therefore be a process that should happen gradually by, for example, starting with smaller cities, where cars can easily be replaced by other transportation methods.
I like the end goal of car free cities. The question is then: how do we get there? To be honest I don’t think it should be by banning cars but by incentivising alternatives. To what degree this will mean disadvantaging cars, remains up for debate and indeed I believe that they should, but maybe viable alternatives should come first!
I mostly agree with your findings on reasons why cars should be banned from cities. Furthermore, I think that subsidizing and financial supporting of public transport is fundamental if not necessary when it comes to a transportation refocus away from cars. I would like to know your opinion on scooters and other two-wheel bases means of transport, especially against the background of the experiences in Bangkok.
I believe that such micro-mobility’s succes depends on the city and the way its transportation infrastructure has been planned over the years. In Bangkok for example, given its size and chaotic traffic I believe the implementation of bicycles would not be a successful solution to this.
Very interesting points made as to why cars should be banned from cities! In my hometown, a part of the city centre is a low traffic zone. However, as this is just a very small area, the effects on efficiency of transport are not as large. Besides that, industrial transport can still enter the area. Therefore there are barely any effects on the efficiency of industrial transport.
Whereas this may work in the small part of the city’s centre, I doubt if banning cars for larger area would be realistic, or if the effects on the efficiency of both industrial and private transport would simply be too large. Perhaps a low traffic zone that still allows industrial transport and public transport would work.
I personally would love to see cars banned from cities, but it is mainly because I have good access to public transportations where I live. Banning cars from cities would certainly have a beneficial aspect when we know that pollution kills approximatively 6 million people per yer, and that the overuse of cars is a big component of this pollution. Moreover, the use of cars is mainly for home-work rides and based on a French study, 70% of the active population who have less than 5kms to go to work use the cars. Overall, as you said it seems a bit idealist to ban completely cars and incentives to a lesser but more efficient use of cars should be implemented first, along with the development of public transportations to make it accessible to everyone and the promotion of greener transportations, like bikes.
I agree with this topic. I believe that a policy banning cars would make cities safer and would also reduce the burden on the environment. However, I think it would be difficult to implement this policy. It would be difficult to replace it with alternative modes of transportation alone. For example, it would be difficult to replace only trains, trams, and bicycles. Thus, I think it would be essential to introduce new vehicles to replace cars and existing means of transportation.
I like this suggestion very much. However, for me, it is for the moment a utopian ideal that is not achievable in our current lifestyle. Whether it is for the individuals who depend on it or for our industry.
Also, the way to achieve this goal is important. I think we should focus on incentives for other options and develop public transport and other means of transportation before or in parallel of any kind of car ban. The arise the question of how the public transport improvements should be made, and what other means of transport to put in place. What do you think?
Moreover, In my opinion, if we want to achieve this one day, it should happen gradually. Maybe at first start with limited car free areas, as it is already the case in many european cities. And, over time, expand them. In addition, it might be an option to implement a measure that limit the number of cars per house, building or housholds. And / or start with only a few cities and democratize it as it goes along.
I also like that you wrote from a holistic point of view, by that I mean you really focussed on different outcomes a car ban would have f.e. health, social effects and environment. I would have been interested to read a little more about, why it has been an unpopular method so far. Reading your essay it sounds like many cities should take this step, but very few have done this so far. So what are possible reasons for this?
I really like your perspective and I think you make some really good points regarding different topics. Such as, climate changing and enjoyability of the city. However, I am wondering what would be the outcome if everything would be electric instead of completely banning cars. I think that would be an interesting solution to examine next time!