City’s like Amsterdam are not build for cars. They are allowed but it is mostly people on foot and bicycles. Going over 30 is not possible and dangerous.
On the contrary: Amsterdam was rebuilt for cars in the 1950s-1970s, then re-rebuilt for bikes because they realized that they had made a terrible mistake.
The point is, it’s not an “oh, it’s just 'cause it’s old and historic and couldn’t possibly be replicated anywhere else” thing. It absolutely can be done everywhere; the only difference is that Amsterdam is one of the few places that’s had the, frankly, good sense to do it. (I almost wrote “political will” there, but when you consider the fact that car-centric design doesn’t even fucking work for car drivers themselves, it really is more a matter of competence than ideology.)
it’s just 'cause it’s old and historic and couldn’t possibly be replicated anywhere else
Not sure why you’re so insistent on replying to your own strawman argument. The statement is “Amsterdam is not built for cars”. That’s it. That’s what you replied to…
The old center that was built before cars is only a part of the city. The rest of the city has been built with car traffic in mind. The problem is more that it is too crowded.
The problem is really that cars are too space inefficient for what they do. Cars travelling at 50km/h should have at the very least 1s of travel distance safety distance between vehicles which is about three car lengths. In other words for the often single person travelling in a car you need about one lane width times 4 car lengths of space which is probably more than your average apartment size in most cities and unlike apartments roads tend to not be stacked 5 or 6 high on top of each other. And that does not even take parking and space to enter and exit each parking space into account. Not to mention that a lot of that space is unused outside the peak usage hours at any given location.
City’s like Amsterdam are not build for cars. They are allowed but it is mostly people on foot and bicycles. Going over 30 is not possible and dangerous.
On the contrary: Amsterdam was rebuilt for cars in the 1950s-1970s, then re-rebuilt for bikes because they realized that they had made a terrible mistake.
So… it’s not currently built for cars.
The point is, it’s not an “oh, it’s just 'cause it’s old and historic and couldn’t possibly be replicated anywhere else” thing. It absolutely can be done everywhere; the only difference is that Amsterdam is one of the few places that’s had the, frankly, good sense to do it. (I almost wrote “political will” there, but when you consider the fact that car-centric design doesn’t even fucking work for car drivers themselves, it really is more a matter of competence than ideology.)
Not sure why you’re so insistent on replying to your own strawman argument. The statement is “Amsterdam is not built for cars”. That’s it. That’s what you replied to…
The old center that was built before cars is only a part of the city. The rest of the city has been built with car traffic in mind. The problem is more that it is too crowded.
The problem is really that cars are too space inefficient for what they do. Cars travelling at 50km/h should have at the very least 1s of travel distance safety distance between vehicles which is about three car lengths. In other words for the often single person travelling in a car you need about one lane width times 4 car lengths of space which is probably more than your average apartment size in most cities and unlike apartments roads tend to not be stacked 5 or 6 high on top of each other. And that does not even take parking and space to enter and exit each parking space into account. Not to mention that a lot of that space is unused outside the peak usage hours at any given location.